Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 07-75 Case VAR 07-01 & PP 07-08 - A & H Management �1�-� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Approval of a Variance to Section 25.28.060 Minimum Street Frontage Setback of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an encroachment into the required 2:1 street frontage setback ratio and to allow a two-foot six- inch (2'6")encroachment into the minimum five-foot(5')street frontage setback; and a precise plan to construct a 15,499 square foot two-story commercial retail restaurant building including a 36-foot tower element located at 73-399 EI Paseo on the southwest corner of Lupine Lane and EI Paseo. SUBMITTED BY: Renee Schrader Associate Planner APPLICANT: A & H Management 210 E. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90015 CASE NOS.: VAR 07-01, PP 07-08 DATE: November 8, 2007 CONTENTS: Recommendation Draft Resolution No. 0�-�5 Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 16, 2007 Planning Commission Resolution 2457 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 16, 2007 Comments from other departments ARC Minutes Plans and Exhibits Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 0�-75 approving Variance 07-01 and Precise Plan 07-08. Staff Report VAR 07-01, PP 07-08 November 8, 2007 Page 2 of 14 Executive Summarv: Approval of Variance (VAR 07-01) and Precise Plan (PP 07-08) would allow the City Council to waive the required Zoning Ordinance Section 25.28.060, Minimum Street Frontage Setback, regarding the 2:1 ratio street frontage setback and the five-foot (5') minimum street frontage setback and to approve plans for a new two-story 15,499 square foot commercial retail/restaurant on a lot that could otherwise not be developed in keeping with fhe predominant massing and density of parcels on EI Paseo. In addition, the request asks the City Council to approve the parking analysis as a pedestrian-oriented project; under the criteria of a "mix of uses" in the EI Paseo Commercial Overlay Zone and in the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan. The approval would find that the criteria of 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. and the 20% of shared parking allowance would be in conformance the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan and with the intent of Zoning Ordinance Section 25.29 EI Paseo Pedestrian Commercial Overlay Zone. Project approval would include both the collection of a seventy-five thousand dollar ($75,000) in lieu parking fee towards the purchase of an EI Paseo Courtesy Cart or construction of a parking structure, and the recordation of a Reciprocal Parking Agreement to ensure that the shared rear parking lot would dedicate shared parking in perpetuity with the proposed new building. Planninq Commission Action: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Street Frontage Variance and approved the Precise Plan with a 5-0 vote. While discussions included concerns regarding the parking availability throughout the EI Paseo corridor, it was agreed that the project would be an asset to the streetscape, and that the in-lieu parking fee is appropriate. Discussion: I. BACKGROUND: A. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The request for above listed entitlements for a new two-story, multi-tenant building proposes to demolish an existing single-story restaurant buifding formerly known as Picanha. The existing building is on the southwest corner of EI Paseo and Lupine G.��PLANNINGVtENEE SCHRADERIWORD F/LESIPP CUP COLONNADEWOV 8 CC�CC 11�8 STAFF REPORT JJ.DOC Staff Report VAR 07-01, PP 07-08 November 8, 2007 Page 3 of 14 Lane. The current architecture is French revival, stucco-covered and is finished with a metallic mansard roof. The existing building has a circular driveway for guests to access the valet. A. Exiting Parking Conditions The "over-all site plan" for the project shown in the submitted booklet illustrates three buildings on two adjacent properties. A & H Management, applicant, owns the two adjoining properties. The three buildings on the two lots have been assigned numbers for the purpose of discussion. The existing westerly building, illustrated as "Building 1", and most of the second building, illustrated as "Building 2", have a parking lot in the rear with 96 parking spaces. The current Picanha building, "Building 3", is located within the same property lines as the adjacent two-story building (Building 2) to the west. Building 2 is currently named "Colonnade". Presently, Picanha (Building 3) shares common parking with the existing Colonnade (Building 2) directly behind these two buildings. Additionally, at this time, parking for the Picanha Restaurant (Building 3), part of Colonnade (Building 2)and all of Building 1 is shared in the larger parking lot to the west directly behind Building 1. B. Existing Site and Grade Conditions The following data describes the property line dedication and grade change information regarding proposed demolition and new construction on the corner of EI Paseo and Lupine Lane: • The existing property line along Lupine Lane was dedicated as twelve feet (12'0") from the curb. • Along the EI Paseo side the existing property line was dedicated as nine- feet, six- inches (9'6") from the curb. • The existing site has an approximately three-foot, nine-inch (3'9") grade change sloping downhill in a northward direction. • There is an insignificant grade difference befinreen the project site and adjacent building to the west. G�WLANNINGUtENEE$CHRADERIWORD FkES�PP_CUP COL ONNADEWOV 8 CCICC 77-8 STAFF REPORT J1DOC Staff Report VAR 07-01, PP 07-08 November 8, 2007 Page 4 of 14 C. Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan: In 1987, the City Council approved the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan to promote and maximize the potential for quality development of Highway 111, EI Paseo Avenue, Alessandro Drive and gateways to the City. The Specific Plan identifies EI Paseo as "unique throughout the Coachella Valley as an outdoor urban specialty retail/restaurant boulevard designed on a scale appropriate to pedestrians". Several of the Specific Plan's policies were aimed to promote EI Paseo's ability to successfully compete with new planned commercial developments. The general policy states: "The overall goal of the City's Planning and Redevelopment policies in the study area shall be the promotion of high quality compatible economic growth. Emphasis should be placed on solving potential parking or traffic problems in a positive manner rather than through restrictions on the level of activity"(pg 5). A copy of the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan is attached to this report. On EI Paseo there are many mixed use retail/restaurant shopping centers. The parking requirement in the commercial zone is 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet. As a general policy,the City has allowed 20% restaurant use on EI Paseo. In the case of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee, (TUMF) additional fees are triggered when restaurant use exceeds 25% of a shopping center project. The proposed project includes a restaurant that comprises 5,261 sq. ft. Allowing a 20% allocation for restaurant use of the total 40,729 sq. ft. shared project parking area, as it has been done in the past, the project meets the 4 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. criteria, for 8,146 square feet of project area. G.WLANNING'J7ENEESCHRADERIWORDF4ESWP CUPCOLONNADEWOVBCCICCll-BSTAFFREOORTJJ.DOC Staff Report VAR 07-01, PP 07-08 November 8, 2007 Page 5 of 14 D. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: C-1 (General Commercial) Retail South: PR-16 (Planned Residential 16 du/ac) Two-story Condominiums East: C-1 (General Commercial) Retail West: C-1 (General Commercial) Retail E. General Plan Land Use Designation: Community Commercial (C-C) II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed commercial building would bring a new configuration for this corner. The proposed total new building area would be 15,499 sq. ft. The first story would be a total 10,238 square feet of retail. It would house seven (7)tenants on the street level; each tenant space ranging in gross floor area from 1,382 to 1,916 square feet. A 5,261 square foot restaurant would occupy the second level, which would include a terrace for outdoor dining, and be accessed both by stairs and an elevator. The breezeway space between the existing Colonnade and Picanha buildings wou{d remain. The building would step back at the second story forthe restaurant to accommodate a 17-foot wide outdoor dining terrace.An architectural cap atop the restaurant would serve as a decorative roof element that would be 36' feet high at its tallest point. The project provides handicap accessibility at every entry. Due to the grade difference, where the land slopes downward from south tip of the property towards EI Paseo, the proposed Colonnade building is less tall as it nears the residential properties to the south. An existing six-foot (6) {andscape buffer is planted on the subject property that would remain. Adjoining the southerly property line are two-story residential condominiums. A property dividing and retaining wall is shielded from view on the adjacent southerly residential property by carports and approximately four (4) feet of planted landscape. The housing units are further separated from the new project by an existing driveway accessing the carports and by landscaped areas planted in the condominium front setbacks facing south. G'.PL4NN/NGIRENEE SCHRADERIWORO F/LESIPP CUP COLONNADEWOV 8 CC�CC 11-8 STqfF REPORT.IJ.DOC Staff Report VAR 07-01, PP 07-08 November 8, 2007 Page 6 of 14 A. Architecture: On September 11, 2007, the Architectural Review Commission granted design approval of the proposed two (2)-story retail/restaurant building, which would achieve high-end architecture in a desert contemporary style. The new Colonnade building proposes horizontal massing, rectilineardetails and a curved capping element on the roof that would be 32 feet, 9 inches at its lowest and 36 feet at its highest point. The highest point would be oriented towards the EI Paseo/Lupine Lane corner. Additional details repeat classic curved iterations; at times in wall sconces, decorative urns, and the as capstone roof elements over clerestory towers on the northwest and southeast corners. A trellis is proposed for the second story outdoor terrace diners along the EI Paseo elevation. Surface finishes consist of painted dashed plaster, EI Dorado Stone and painted metal roofs and decorative metal details. Exteriorwalls vary in colorfrom grey,to rust to sand tones. A materials sample board will be distributed during the meeting. Storefront mullions are proposed to be natural anodized aluminum. Glazing would be dual glaze clear glass with a 10% grey tone in compliance with the City's Title 24 Energy efficiency standards, which insure compliance with the 2005 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, including California Code of Regulation Title 24. Awnings are demonstrated to render examples forfuture variety and visual texture, but are not intended as a part of the project review. B. Development Standards The following table inserted on the following page outlines the required development standards for the proposed new building. G iPLANNINGJ2ENEE SCHR4DERIWORD FILESIPP_CUP COLONNADEVJOV B CC�CC 11-B STAFF REPORT JJ DOC Staff Report VAR 07-01, PP 07-08 November 8, 2007 Page 7 of 14 Development Standard C-1 General Commercial Proposed & Code Section Code Re uirements/Allowances Colonnade Buildin Pro'ect Area N/A 15,499 sq. ft. 25.28.070 Building 30 feet 29' 6" height 25.56.300 B. The Allowed maximum height of tower element Proposed height of height of a structure. = 55' tower element= 36' Tower Element 25.28.060 Minimum On comer lots buildings shall be set back 17' second story street frontage a minimum of two feet for every foot of terrace step back setback building height and shall not encroach into the daylight triangle. Required DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE SETBACK 59.2' 25.28.060 Minimum 5 feet 5 feet street frontage setback 25.28.060 Minimum 5 feet from the property line 2.5 feet from property street frontage line (9.5 feet from setback: Lu ine Lane curb) Rear Setback N/A From the proposed new building to the south property line = 35 feet 25.28.140 Special Where the general commercial Between proposed standards district abuts a residential district, a fence new"Colonnade" or wall six feet in height shall be located building and (Setback between adjoining the property line except adjoining residential commercia/and adjoining a required front yard. All general condominium residential properties) commercial district property lines property to the south, adjoining a residential district shall be the existing landscaped with plant materials for an conditions separate area ten feet in depth. the uses by 6' of landscape area on the subject property and 4' of landscape areas, plus driveway & carports on the residential property to the south. G:�PLANNWG'JtENEE SCMRADERIWORD FLLESPP.CUP COLONNADEWOV 8 CC�CC 1 L8 STAFF REPORT.DOC Staff Report VAR 07-01, PP 07-08 November 8, 2007 Page 8 of 14 III. ANALYSIS: The request is for two variances and a precise plan. The first variance is to allow an encroachment into the required 2:1 ratio street frontage setback as per Zoning Code Section 25.28.060 "Minimum street frontage setback". The second variance is to allow the new building to encroach two-and-a-half feet (2.5) into the required five foot (5') setback per Zoning Code Section 25.28.060 "Minimum street frontage setback". The two variances are justified for the following reasons: 2:1 Setback Ratio providinq a Dayliqht trianqle: Exceptional circumstances exist that preclude any business along the EI Paseo corridor from complying with this requirement for any construction of a second story. In order for the project to be in accordance with the 2:1 setback ratio for a Daylight Triangle, a 59 feet 2 inch street frontage setback from the curb corner for the building would be required. In accordance with the following Zoning Code Section 25.28.060 definition, the project would sustain a substantial economic impact: "Daylight triangle" means the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See Figure 25.A at the end of Chapter 25.25." Compliance with this code provision would prohibit the construction of a two-story project on the corner. In the proposed project, the second story is set back 17 feet, which effectively achieves the goal and intent of a street frontage setback for a pedestrian district such as EI Paseo, as stated in the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan. Furthermore, other properties along EI Paseo have been granted approvals where strict conformance to the Code section was deemed inapplicable and therefore the 2:1 street frontage ratio was waived. 2.5' Street frontaqe setback encroachment: The property line from the curb was originally dedicated at a nine-foot six-inch (9'6") distance along the EI Paseo side and a 12-foot distance along Lupine Lane. No other business on EI Paseo has this condition. The proposed setback is consistent with other businesses on EI Paseo. If the variance were not approved,the applicant would be left with a sidewalk that is two (2) feet, six (6) inches wider on the Lupine Lane side. Enforcement of the C-1 zone's five (5) foot side yard setbacks would deny the property owner the privilege of developing in an aesthetically pleasing way that G��PLANNING'•RENEE SCHRADERIWORD FILESPP CUo COLONNFDEWOV 8 CC�CC 11-8 STAFF REPORT JJ.DOC Staff Report VAR 07-01, PP 07-08 November 8, 2007 Page 9 of 14 distinguishes EI Paseo as the main thoroughfare. In addition it would deny the property owner the opportunity to fully utilize the footprint as enjoyed by other property owners on corners along the EI Paseo corridor. Other properties on EI Paseo having inconsistent property lines have been allowed an encroachment. A. Findings for Granting a Variance: 1. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance codified in this title. • 2:1 Setback Ratio providinq a Dayliqht trianqle: Given that the height of the building is proposed to be 29 feet 6 inches, requiring the property owner to comply with a 2:1 setback ratio would create an unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives codified in the Zoning Ordinance and inconsistent with other properties on the EI Paseo corridor. No two-story building on EI Paseo complies with the Code Section. • 2:5' Street Frontaqe setback encroachment: Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation that provides a five (5) foot setback for General Commercial buildings is not consistent with other street corners on EI Paseo and negativefy impacts the proposed project. The increased existing property setback is greater than every other corner, and the project would be negatively impacted should the five (5) foot street frontage setback be enforced. The applicant intends to supply new sidewalks with paving enhancement. In addition, it would be inconsistent with the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 25.29 EI Paseo Pedestrian Commercial Overlay Zone. This would be contrary to the zoning ordinance's intent to keep: "EI Paseo designed as a pedestrian specialty retail/personal services district. The success of a pedestrian commercial district is dependent upon the creation and maintenance of a continuous succession of diverse but compatible businesses, which attract and sustain pedestrian interest. To encourage this continuous pattern of pedestrian-oriented uses, this chapter shall regulate the type of new uses, which may occupy EI Paseo street-level commercial frontage constructed afterJuly 1, 1987" Gf�PLANNING'RENEE SCHRADERIWORD FI�ESIPP CUP COLONNADEWOV 8 CC�CC 77-8 STAFF REPORT JJ DOC Staff Report VAR 07-01, PP 07-08 November 8, 2007 Page 10 of 14 The Zoning Ordinance requires that the EI Paseo pedestrian overlay zone maintain interest for its pedestrians for shopping and entertainment venues. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. • 2:1 Setback Ratio providinq a Dayliqht trianqle: Strict compliance of the Code Section 25.28.060 for a 2:1 street frontage setback ratio is not applicable to properties on EI Paseo, and has not been enforced in the past due to its preclusion of the construction of any two-story structure on the EI Paseo corners. • 2.5' Street frontaqe setback encroachment: Due to its unusual and exceptional property line dedication, that is inconsistent with other properties in the district, and a resulting sidewalk would be inconsistent with all other properties on EI Paseo, the five (5) foot setback would negatively impact the proposed project. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone. • 2:1 Setback Ratio providinq a Dayliqht trianqle: The strict and literal enforcement of C-1 Code Section 25.28.060 would deny the applicant privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the EI Paseo district. While the subject property is not technically unusual as compared with other properties along EI Paseo, conformance to the 2:1 ratio street frontage setback ratio is not applicable to any property fronting EI Paseo and would be inconsistent with economic and architectural intent for this district. Where other properties have been granted variances, successful and attractive finro story businesses along EI Paseo have been constructed. It would appear that not granting the variance would deny the applicant privileges enjoyed by other property owners along EI Paseo. These exceptional circumstances make it unfeasible to deny the variance. G.'PLANN/NGV7ENEESCHRADERIWOROFILESlPP CUPCOLONNADPJJOVBCC�CC71-8ST.4PFREPORTJJ.DOC Staff Report VAR 07-01, PP 07-08 November 8, 2007 Page 11 of 14 • 2.5' Street Frontaqe setback encroachment: The literal interpretation of Code Section 25.28.060 providing for a 5-foot street frontage setback in a C-1 General Commercial Zone would create an asymmetrical pathway on the Lupine Lane - EI Paseo corner. The sidewafk would be fourteen and a half feet (14.5') on the EI Paseo side and seventeen feet (17') on the Lupine Lane side. Allowing the sidewalk to be wider and the storefront to be set back visually farther from the curb could impede the intended aim of the storefront presence and adversely affect its success. Allowing the building to encroach into the required 5' setback by two-feet six-inches (2'6"), ensures a unified and comprehensive impact and street charisma, and denial of the variance would deprive the applicant this privilege enjoyed by others with EI Paseo storefronts. 4. That the granting of the variance or adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • 2:1 Setback Ratio providinq a Dayliqht Trianqle: Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, orwelfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed two-story commercial building will update the appearance of the corner with fresh look and bring the site into compliance with the zoning ordinance requirement that EL Paseo remain an attractive exciting pedestrian venue. • 2.5 Street Frontaqe setback encroachment: Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Granting of the variance will ensure a lasting, aesthetic and economic improvement to the general vicinity. B. Parking The following table inserted on the following page illustrates the parking requirements for Buildings 1, 2, and 3 shown on the site plan that share parking in the rear. It analyzes utilizing a 20% parking allocation as per the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan. The project additionally assumes that ancillary parking is also available on the street. G•,PLANNING�RENEE SCHRADERIWORD FLLESWP_CUP COLONNFDEWOV 8 CC�CC 71-8 S7AFF REPORT.I.I.DOC Staff Report VAR 07-01, PP 07-08 November 8, 2007 Page 12 of 14 Colonnade Project square footages Code Amount Parking Amount Parking RequiremenUA Required Proposed Ilowance Parking to accommodate: 122 parking lot New Bldg. 15,499 sq.ft. Office/Retail .004x spaces in the Existing Bldgs. 25,230 sq. ft. 4/1000 35,448=142 shared lot to the Outdoor useable area 975 sq.ft. spaces rear of Bldg 1 & Total 40,729 sq. ft Bldg 2 Minus 15% =net leaseable space =35,448 sq. ft. In addition, 17 street spaces along EI Paseo and 4 spaces along Lupine Lane are used in the applicanYs calculation = 143 s aces ro osed Handicap Parking State of Califomia For every 101- Building Code Section 1129B 150 spaces 5 spaces are 5 spaces 5 spaces re uired The project as proposed intends to utilize 21 spaces along the shared project's street frontages, and ancillary parking anywhere along EI Paseo as well as incidental parking availabfe in the City's public parking areas, in addition to the 122 parking spaces located to the rear of Buildings 1 and 2. In the past, mixed- use restaurant/retail projects having frontages along EI Paseo have met a 4/1000 parking criteria,as per the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan; as the entire district is pedestrian oriented and variety of uses and destinations has been encouraged. Staff recommends that the City Council also find in accordance with the intention of Zoning Ordinance Section 25.29 "EI Paseo Pedestrian Commercial Overlay Zone". Historically, mixed used shopping centers on EI Paseo have succeeded with parking at 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet and 20°l0 of the center used for restaurants. For example, EI Paseo Square where the Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf is located and The Gardens on EI Paseo are two examples where the parking was allowed to remain at the 4/1000 standard. G�PLANNWGV7ENEE SCHR4DERIWORD FIIESPP CUP COLONNADEWOV 8 CG�CC/1-8 STAFF REPORT JJ.00C Staff Report VAR 07-01, PP 07-08 November 8, 2007 Page 13 of 14 There are no restaurants on EI Paseo that meet the stand-alone parking requirements. As a result of the existing pattern of buildings and the desire to maintain the district as a pedestrian oriented destination, older buildings, which no longer conform to present standards, dominate various blocks of the EI Paseo district. Inability to comply with the current parking requirements actually acts as a disincentive for new investment, causing a cycle of decline, which causes properties to deteriorate further as well as to depreciate adjacent buildings. The proposed project would allow the district a manageable product within the framework of past approvals and the intent of continued success of the EI Paseo Pedestrian Overlay District. C. In-Lieu Parking Fee: Technically, on-street parking may not be counted towards meeting the requirements of a proposed project. However, Section 25.58.330 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for payment of in-lieu fees in commercial districts where insufficient off-street parking is provided. Staff recommends that an in- lieu parking fee of seventy-five thousand ($75,000.00)dollars be collected to provide for the purchase of an EL Paseo Courtesy Cart and one year of operating expenses for the new cart, or towards construction of a public parking structure in the future, to further reinforce the intent of the pedestrian experience for this Zone. D. Reciprocal Parking Agreement: The new Colonnade project would require recordation of a Reciprocal Parking Agreement in order to satisfy staff's concerns regarding future parking shortages in an already impacted district. A condition of approval addressing the issue has been submitted from the Department of Public Works that reads: Project shall record a reciprocal parking and access agreement with property to the west prior to issuance of grading permit. G'�PLANNINGV2ENEE SCMRADERIWORD FLLESPP_CUP COLONNADEWOV 8 CCICC 71-8 STAFF REGORT JJ DOC Staff Report VAR 07-01, PP 07-08 November 8, 2007 Page 14 of 14 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: For purposes of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed project is a Class 3 categorical exemption per Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA. V. CONCLUSION: The success of a pedestrian commercial district is dependent upon the creation and maintenance of a continuous array of diverse but compatible businesses, which attract and sustain pedestrian interest. The proposed site planning and architectural design effectively support this goal. The proposed density and building height was strategically placed in this location to minimize visual impacts from outside and inside. Approving this project as proposed will benefit the City by providing increased sales tax revenue to the General Fund and approval of the variance and precise plan as a whole would contribute positively to the existing streetscape, inviting new tenants and a new dining destination to the district. Submitted By: �ITY COUNCIL�CTION: APP120�TED � DENIED ���� � ' �-�. - OTHER — ��, ���C,�. - � ��-� i�''.ETII�TG D�TE 1 - - RENEE SCH DER AYES: �� �l Q �� Associate Planner ��E�� � P�SEIVT: � ABST�IIN: . �j" �� VE�IFIED BY: A,.'��'".-� j � �riginal 0�1 File wit City Clerk's OffirE RI AYLAIAN Director of Community Development _/�=-,,-/`'„�,.. ,: ��----�'--�. OMER CROY ACM, Development Services CARLOS ORTEGA City Manager G:IPLANNINGViENEE SCHRADERIWORD FILESIPP CUP COLONNADEWOV 8 CCICC 11-8 STAFF REPORLDOC RESOLUTION NO. 0�-�5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 25.28.060 MINIMUM STREET FRONTAGE SETBACK OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REGIUIRED 2:1 STREET FRONTAGE SETBACK RATIO AND TO ALLOW A TWO- FOOT SIX-INCH (2'6") ENCROACHMENT INTO THE MINIMUM FIVE— FOOT (5') STREET FRONTAGE SETBACK; AND A PRECISE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 15,499 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL RETAIL RESTAURANT BUILDING INCLUDING A 36-FOOT TOWER ELEMENT LOCATED AT 73-399 EL PASEO. CASE NOS: VAR 07-01 AND PP 07-08 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 8"' day of November, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by A & H Management for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16"' day of October, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the said request, and by its Resolution No. 2457 recommended approval of VAR 07-01 and PP 07-08; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act", Resolution No. 06-78, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that this project has been previously addressed in an certified EIR for Section 4 and no further environmental review is necessary for the purposes of CEQA; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said request: VARIANCE 1. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance codified in this title. • 2:1 Setback Ratio qroviding a Davliqht triangfe: Given that the height of the building is proposed to be 29'6", requiring the property owner to comply with a 2:1 setback ratio would create an unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives codified in the Zoning Ordinance and inconsistent with other properties on the EI Paseo corridor. Every two-story building on EI Paseo does not comply with the Code Section. • 2.5' Street Frontaqe setback encroachment: Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation that provides a 5-foot setback for General Commercial buildings is not consistent with other street corners on EI Paseo and negatively impacts the proposed project. The increased existing property setback is greater than every other corner and the project would be negatively impacted should the 5-foot street frontage setback be enforced. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. • 2:1 Setback Ratio providina a Davliqht trianqle: Strict compliance of the Code Section 25.28.060 for a 2:1 street frontage setback ratio is not applicable to properties on EI Paseo, and has not been enforced in the past due to its preclusion of the construction of any two-story structure on the EI Paseo corners. • 2.5' Street frontaqe setback encroachment: Due to its unusual and exceptional property line dedication, that is inconsistent with other properties in the district, and that a resulting sidewalk would be inconsistent with all other properties on EI Paseo, the 5' setback would negatively impact the proposed project. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone. • 2:1 Setback Ratio providinq a Davlight trianqle: The strict and literal enforcement of C-1 Code Section 25.28.060 would deny the applicant privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the EI Paseo district. While the subject property is not technically unusual as compared with other properties along EI Paseo, conformance to the 2:1 ratio street frontage setback ratio is not applicable to any property fronting EI Paseo and would be inconsistent with economic and architectural intent for this district. Where other properties have been granted variances, successful and attractive two story businesses along EI Paseo have been constructed. It would appear that not granting the variance would deny the applicant privileges enjoyed by other property owners along EI Paseo. These exceptional circumstances make it unfeasible to deny the variance. • 2.5' Street Frontaqe setback encroachment: The literal interpretation of Code Section 25.28.060 providing for a 5-foot street frontage setback in a C-1 General Commercial Zone would create an asymmetrical pathway on the Lupine Lane - EI Paseo corner. The sidewalk would be fourteen and a half feet (14.5') on the EI Paseo side and seventeen feet (17') on the Lupine Lane side. Allowing the sidewalk to be wider and the storefront to be setback visually farther from the curb coufd impede the intended aim of the storefront presence and adversely affect its success. Allowing the building to encroach into the required 5' setback by two-feet six-inches (2'6"), ensures a unified and comprehensive impact and street charisma, and by not allowing would deprive the applicant this privilege enjoyed by others with EI Paseo storefronts. 4. That the granting of the variance or adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • 2:1 Setback Ratio providinq a Daylipht trian�le: Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed two-story commercial building will update the appearance of the corner with fresh look and bring the site into compliance with the zoning ordinance requirement that EL Paseo remain an attractive exciting Pedestrian venue. • Street Frontaqe setback encroachment: Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Granting of the variance will ensure a lasting, aesthetic and economic improvement to the general vicinity. PREC{SE PLAN 1. The design of the precise plan shall comply with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, except for the approved Variances to the Street Frontage Setbacks. 2. The precise plan shall not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan shall not endanger the public peace, health, safery, or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That the City Council does hereby approve VAR 07-01 and PP 07-08 subject to conditions attached. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 8th day of November, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RfCHARD KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. VAR 07-01 AND PP 07-OS Department of Communitv Develoament: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. The applicant shall construct a fourteen-foot six-inch (14'6") wide sidewalk along the property's frontage as shown on the project site plan. 2. The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Desert an in-lieu parking fee in the amount of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) to apply towards either the purchase of an EI Paseo Courtesy Cart and one-year of its operation, or the construction of a parking structure, at the sole discretion of the City. 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachel�a Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department 6. Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 7. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable waste company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 8. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. 9. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Pubtic Works prior to final Architectural Review Commission submittal. 10. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringe-Toed Lizard, TUMF, School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees. 11. Any and all proposed outdoor lighting shall comply with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.16. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan prepared by a qualified lighting engineer shall be submitted to staff for approval. 12. All roof top equipment shall be screened from all views. The applicant shall provide building sections and/or line of sight drawings to illustrate that all roof top equipment is screened from all views. 13. A Conditional Use Permit is required for any and all outdoor sales of arts, crafts, clothing, goods, and any other merchandise. 14. Delivery hours shall be limited to 7:00 am to 10:00 pm. 15. All conditions of approval shall be recorded before any building permits are issued. Evidence of recordation shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development/Planning. Department of Public Works: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. All landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner who shall maintain the landscaping per the City approved landscape document package for the life of the project, consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ord. 801). 2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. BONDS AND FEES 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 6. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 7. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. 8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 10. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 11. Landscape installation shall be drought tolerant in nature and in accordance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (24.04). 12. Landscape, grading, and utility plans shall be submitted for review concurrently. 13. Full public improvements, as required by Section 26 of the Palm Dese�t Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 14. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No occupancy permit shall be granted until public improvements have been completed. 15. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department. 16. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management and Discharge Control. 17. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 18. Project shall record a reciprocal parking and access agreement with property to the west prior to issuance of grading permit. RESOLUTION NO. Department of Buildinq and Safetv: 1. Project must conform to the City of Palm Desert adopted codes at the time of plan check submittal. Currently the reference codes are: 2001 CALIFORNIA BUfLDfNG CODE (Based on 1997 UBC) 2001 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (Based on 2000 UMC) 2001 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING C�DE (Based on 2000 UPC) 2004 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (Based on 2002 NEC) 2005 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 2001 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in every building (except R3 occupancies) where the total accumulation of gross floor area is 3000 square feet or more. (Reference City of Palm Desert Ordinance 1054). 3. A disabled access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to the Dept of Buifding and Safety for plan review of the site accessibility requirements as per 2001 CBC Chapter 11 B. 3. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 4. All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 5. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1006. You may request a copy of the Ordinance at the Building Department. Riverside Countv Fire Department: 1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 8 RESOLUTION NO. 3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm ffow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings. 4. The required flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant (s) 4" x 2 Y2 "x 2Y2", located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travel-way. 5. Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. AIf valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water- flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9. 8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per MFPA 10, but not fess than one 2A10BC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 10. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street, the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial developments. 11. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 12. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. Coachella Vallev Water District: 1. The District shall furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2. The District requires restaurants to install a grease interceptor, including a sample box, sanitary tee and running trap with cleanout, prior to any discharge to its sanitation facilities. The size of the grease interceptor will be determined and approve by the District. Installation of the interceptor shall be inspected by the District. 3. Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. 10 CITY Of P �� � �l DESERI � �j—SIO FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT,CnuFottNin qzz6o-z578 rEt,:760 ;�6—o6u Fnx:760 ;qi-7oq8 in(oPpalm-dcscn.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.VAR 07-01 PP 07-08 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request for Colonnade by A & H Management for the approval of a Variance to Section 25.28.060 Minimum Street Frontage Setback of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an encroachment into the required 2:1 street frontage setback ratio and to allow a two- foot six-inch (2'6")encroachment into the minimum five—foot(5')street frontage setback; and a precise plan to construct a 15,499 square foot two-story commercial retail restaurant building including a 36-foot tower element located at 73-399 EI Paseo on the southwest comer of Lupine Lane and EI Paseo. � ���' � ou-�� LEi�ANQ OR A � ALLEY �,_j_��� ( wLli � C�I I �� � ��C PALYDE�R7DR N � t �y STATEMWV11f STATEHWY111—� g ° _Pl4LYD SER OR m i z e � c� � � � EL PASEO El PASEO I � ,< �� O m 4 � d �� � � ( �.���SHADOWApUNTAtlV OR$MADqW NOSJNTAp�pR � � � m � JOSkl1ZTR�E ST 4 - - SAID public hearing will be held on November 8, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center,73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,Califomia,at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments conceming all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission (or City Council)at, or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk October 25,2007 City of Palm Desert, California DRAF`t MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16. 2007 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 07-18 - DAVID AND LOIE BUTTERFIELD, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 5, 6 and 7 of Tract 25296-5 within Bighorn, also described as 108, 1 10 and 1 12 Lantana View. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. � A. Case Nos. VAR 07-01 and PP 07-08 - A & H MANAGEMENT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to the City Council for: the approval of a Variance to Section 25.28.060 Minimum Street Frontage Setback of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an encroachment into the required 2:1 street frontage setback ratio and to allow a two-foot six-inch encroachment into the minimum five-foot street frontage setback; and a precise plan to construct a 15,499 square foot two-story commercial retail restaurant building including a 36-foot tower element located at 73-399 EI Paseo on the southwest corner of Lupine Lane and EI Paseo. Ms. Schrader reviewed the staff report and recommended that Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Case Nos. VAR 07- 01 and PP 07-08. 2 DRAF't MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16. 2007 Commissioner Schmidt asked about access to the restaurant upstairs. She asked if there would be an elevator or escalator. Ms. Schrader replied that there would be an elevator located in the rear, as well as stairs on both sides. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was a formula used to come up with the $75,000 parking fee. Ms. Aylaian explained that she consulted with the operator of the courtesy cart program and determined that the cost to purchase one new cart would be $15,000 and an operation cost of approximately $60,000 per cart per year, which seemed a reasonable fee. She indicated that long term there will be parking issues in the EI Paseo District and the City has engaged an engineer to conduct some studies of feasibility for locations of a paricing structure and what it would cost. As new projects on EI Paseo are proposed, and there are a number coming up in the coming months, staff will be looking for a contribution that wifl go toward a City-owned public parking structure. It isn't far enough along to identify a location or a specific project, so it was a little nebulous to ask them to participate in the cost on a per stall basis in a parking structure that hasn't been identified. So for this case in particular, it seemed reasonable to suggest that a courtesy cart be added and the operating costs be covered as well because it really does make more flexible the use of parking areas along EI Paseo. The cart program had 50,000 riders last year and has been pretty successful and it was felt that people will be able to park a little further away and use the courtesy carts to get around the fact that there isn't parking right in front of their destination. Commissioner Tanner asked if notifications were sent to the nearby condo owners and if there was any opposition or concerns received. Ms. Schrader indicated that no negative responses were received from the notice, which appeared in the paper and through mailers. Commissioner Tanner asked if this was done recently and if the condo owners were permanent residents or seasonal. Ms. Schrader said she didn't know, but knew the mailing for the radius was done. Commissioner Tanner asked about the rear parking in between the proposed restaurant / retail and the condo property line. He asked if that would be used by customers. Ms. Schrader explained that the plan provides for a driveway and then the actual shared parking was in the rear. She displayed a plan showing parking and pointed out the 122 spaces. Commissioner Tanner said he was concerned, although there hadn't been any complaints yet, about the parking on the southern border. Ms. Schrader indicated there are carports, 35-36 feet, and then the landscaped area. Commissioner Tanner said that shouldn't be a problem. Commissioner Limont asked if, based on last season, there was an issue with parking. Ms. Aylaian said there are parking problems in specific areas; 3 DRAF�r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16. 2007 Presidents Plaza parking lots typically in season are pretty congested and hard to get into and it was anticipated that a number of the uses being proposed will intensify the need for parking in other areas. But right now, Presidents Plaza has the most congestion. On page 2, Chairperson Campbell noted that Buildings 1 and 2 have a parking lot in the rear with 96 parking spaces. Ms. Schrader explained that the entire amount is 122 total for the new proposed parking area and the existing. Chairperson Campbell indicated that there was no construction behind Building 2; that remained the same. Building 3 is the one they were speaking about. Looking at the design, the restaurant would not be as large on the first floor, but there would be the new building, and that is why they are eliminating parking behind the new building, whereas currently there is parking behind the restaurant. But they were eliminating the parking from Lupine to Building 2 where this buiiding wifl be built. Ms. Schrader agreed that the current Picanha building has existing parking and that parking will be eliminated. Chairperson Campbell reiterated her concern that they would have a restaurant that is a smaller size, it currently has more parking, and now this building will have 15,000 square feet and they were eliminating that parking. They would have a lot of retail going in, and that retail staff thought will be closed at 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m., and then they would have enough parking for the restaurant. She didn't think that would be the case, because the businesses will be open because the restaurant is there. Then they have the Gardens, so now if there isn't enough parking here, they would go into the Gardens section and she didn't think that was fair. She could see a parking problem on EI Paseo, and during season there is a parking problem in the parking lots. Ms. Schrader agreed that there is a parking impact on EI Paseo. Chairperson Campbell asked why this building needed to be extended to the south. Ms. Schrader thought that might be a question better answered by the applicant. There were no other questions for staff and Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. JOHN VUKSIC, Prest Vuksic Architects, came forward. To answer the concerns about parking, he stated that when they did the design for this project, it wasn't their intent to have too much building for the site. The parking lot that is there now is about 20% utilized; he wasn't sure why, but guessed it might be because people didn't know it was there. But the buildings are about 80% occupied and the parking lot only 20% utilized. When they did the calculations, they did them based on their historical method of doing these calculations. A good example was across the street at EI Paseo Square, which is where Office Max, Table Top Elegance and Norwalk Furniture are 4 DRAF'1" MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16. 2007 located. Those calculations were done taking the street parking into account. Those are real parking spaces adjacent to the property. This was done the exact same way; the only difference was that they got them for free and now they had to pay for them. At EI Paseo Square there has never been anything even resembling a parking problem and they anticipate this to be much the same based on how much the parking lot is currently used. There are a lot of empty parking spaces there. Chairperson Campbell didn't think they could compare the parking for the two projects. They had talked about the EI Paseo Square Highway 111 frontage and building a couple of restaurants there. If those do come along, then they are taking those parking spaces away. Also, they really couldn't compare the existing Coffee Bean to a restaurant, in addition to the seven tenants that will be there, and comparing it to EI Paseo Square. All these seven tenants are retail and they will be parking and will be finding those parking spaces which he said are not being used right now. Mr. Vuksic thought that with the street parking adjacent to the property, they are parked at 4/1,000, which is the standard. And they have quite a bit less than 20% for restaurant use, which also, although it isn't written anywhere, has been the standard that has been used by the City. As far as those numbers go, they are in compliance with parking calculations. Commissioner Schmidt asked if he remembered how many total parking spaces there are in the Office Max/Norwalk Furniture parking lot. Mr. Vuksic wasn't sure, but thought around 240. Commissioner Tanner asked if any of the tenants were secured at this point, potential tenants, or if he had a restaurant in mind. Mr. Vuksic answered that he wasn't aware of a restaurant. Commissioner Tanner asked if the restaurant would cater to a lunch and dinner crowd, specifically dinner, or a combination. Mr. Vuksic didn't know; if it catered to the lunch and dinner crowd, the dinner crowd would probably be the bigger crowd. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the staff report indicated that the awnings are for demonstration only and might not be a part of the building. In his 5 DRAF't MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16. 2007 personal opinion, they added a lot to the building. If they didn't have the awnings, he asked what might be proposed there. Mr. Vuksic said he would propose the awnings, however, they would like the tenants to have a chance to design the awnings to suit their businesses and have their own identity in the awning instead of dictating their awning to them. They would still have control of the design as the owner's representative, as they've had on other projects, and they would still need to meet a standard that they accept, as well as Architectural Review Commission. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Vuksic knew how tall the current Picanha building is on the site right now. Mr. Vuksic guessed the existing Picanha building was less than 20 feet. Chairperson Campbell noted that the pad was elevated from the sidewalk, so it looks taller. She indicated that the proposed building would excavate down to the level of the other buildings. Mr. Vuksic confirmed it would be lowered to the sidewalk level as opposed to the existing raised patio. Chairperson Campbell asked for confirmation that they want to construct a building in line with Buildings 1 and 2 along the sidewalk. They would have the same size sidewalk as the other buildings and along Lupine they would have the same size sidewalk all the way around. Mr. Vuksic said that was correct. He said they were within the setback on EI Paseo, it was Lupine that was a little odd. They were simply proposing that the setback on EI Paseo, which is to the building and planning code, be carried around onto Lupine, as opposed to having a bigger sidewalk on Lupine. Chairperson Campbell thought that was fine. There were no other questions of the applicant and Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. She asked for Commission for comments. Commissioner Limont explained that height is always a concern when it comes to building in Palm Desert, especially on EI Paseo. One of the best parts of EI Paseo is that people can actually walk along the sidewalks and see the mountains. It's just one of the best parts of EI Paseo. But she felt the 6 f�RAF`t MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2007 applicant had done a terrific job with this building. Despite the fact that she didn't think that was a tower element, but a roof line, she thought they did a really good job architecturally, with balance and with the setback, and although she would love to see it at 30 feet, it worked at 36, so she would be in favor because they put in the effort to mitigate some of the issues with the height. Commissioner Schmidt stated that it is a great project and she was very much in favor of it. As she understood the roof, she shared Commissioner Limont's concern. She understood that from the north to the south coming down to EI Paseo there is about a five-foot drop from one end to the other. That rendered that roof lower than it would if that was a flat grade from the front to the back of the building going up toward the condos. So it was like it was in a hole. That was the main reason she didn't object to the roof. She thought it was an interesting element and a beautiful project. She did not share the concem that parking is a problem. She thought it would be alright and that it belonged there and looked good. Commissioner Tschopp concurred that it is a very beautiful building, will be a great addition to the street, and will help anchor it. He was in favor. He did have a concern about parking in that there have been many nights he has been there and parking is a real issue in that area. Just as a precaution, he said he would like to see them add an agreement with the applicant that they will work to take care of any parking deficiency that may occur in the future, and this could include things they have done with other projects such as requiring employees to be brought in from another parking lot, car pooling and things of that nature to help alleviate parking congestion in that area. They've given away those spaces along EI Paseo and Lupine several times now and he thought it will be a problem, but he also thought the project would be a great addition and was in favor. Commissioner Tanner also concurred. He thought this would be a great addition to EI Paseo and will clearly enhance our major street in Palm Desert. He felt Mr. Vuksic created a great showcase and he was also in favor. Chairperson Campbell concurred as well, although she still had concerns with the parking. She thought it would always be a problem, and wanted it to be a problem, but one that should also be corrected for everyone on the street. Regarding the $75,000 parking fee for the EI Paseo courtesy cart or the construction of a parking structure, a parking structure would be the best of the two. She could see behind Building 1 there is an area where a parking structure could be built. She still felt parking would be a problem and agreed 7 DRAF't MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2007 with Commissioner Tschopp that they should include something to address future parking; otherwise, she was in favor. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that would be conditioned to have the applicant participate in a parking agreement to alleviate the anticipated parking shortage that they were granting the applicant at this time. Commissioner Tanner asked if they should do something during peak season. Chairperson Campbell and Commissioner Tschopp both said year round. Commissioner Tschopp noted that it had been done on other commercial buildings in the area. Ms. Aylaian said they typically do something fike a parking management plan, and that is if they have a specific parking garage or parking facility. As Commissioner Tschopp indicated, they would require employees to park most remotely. Commissioner Schmidt asked if they wanted a stipulation in the approval that it would require them to build a parking structure in the future. Chairperson Campbell said no, not at this time. Commissioner Schmidt said she wasn't in favor of requiring the applicant to build a parking structure. Ms. Aylaian suggested that the language be something to indicate that at a future date, if a parking issue arises (in the sole judgement of the City Traffic Engineer), then the applicant will work cooperatively with the City of Palm Desert to establish a parking management plan to maximize use of other available public parking spaces. She thought it needed to be keyed into something. At this point there isn't a problem and they don't know that there will be a problem, but would like to require that they cooperate in the future if there is a problem. She also suggested that it would be up to the City to determine whether or not there is a problem. Commissioner Schmidt indicated that any contribution on their part in the future would not be on this site, but on another public site. Ms. Ayfaian wasn't envisioning at this point that cooperation necessarily meant a financial contribution. The $75,000 contribution could either be used for the courtesy cart program or toward a parking structure. Future cooperation would be cooperation to implement a parking management plan. If they were wanting specific fees in the future, they might have to regroup and figure out how that would be implemented or based on. Commissioner Schmidt said if it is an agreement that indicates there is a future parking problem, that they would be part of the solution other than on their site, then her motion is okay. But she did not want to tie her motion to a parking structure. She didn't think that was fair. Chairperson 8 �RAF`t MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16. 2007 Campbell said that wasn't what they were talking about. Ms. Aylaian didn't think there was any indication that would be the case. Commissioner Schmidt just wanted it to be clear. Commissioner Limont asked if this included the $75,000. Ms. Aylaian indicated that it was already contained in the conditions of approval. Chairperson Campbell noted there was a motion and a second and called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2457 recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. VAR 07-01 and PP 07-08, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Informational discussion of upcoming Housing Element Update as required by the State of California. Mr. Stendell noted that this was an informational item to let the Planning Commission know that the City's Housing Element, as required by State law, is due to be updated by June 10, 2008. He said the City is in the beginning stages of the update and were selecting a consultant to work with us on the update. Staff wanted to bring it to the Commission's attention in case they saw any public outreach meetings in the near future, they wouldn't be surprised. He indicated that the Housing Element is part of the City's adopted General Plan, and the update requires a certain level of community outreach programs, getting a certain amount of input from commissions, committees, and the general public, so the process was beginning and staff wanted to let them know about it. He hoped to be before the Planning Commission in the spring of next year. He asked if there were any questions at this time about the City's current Housing Element and reiterated that this discussion item was to make them aware it was coming as mandated by the State, which must be complied with to keep going with our wonderful redevelopment projects. Chairperson Campbell thought it was very informative and wished it was more updated than 2000-2001. Action: None. 9 � ; '� � 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTtON NO. 2457 i A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY ' OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECtJMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO SECTION 25.28.060 MINIMUM STREET FRONTAGE SETBACK OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED 2:1 STREET FRONTAGE SETBACK RATIO AND TO ALLOW A TWO-FOOT SIX-INCH (2'6"} ENCROACHMENT INTO THE MINIMUM FIVE—FOOT (5') STREET FRONTAGE SETBACK, AND APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 15,499 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL RETAIL RESTAURANT BUILDING INCLUDING A 36-FOOT TOWER ELEMENT LOCATED AT 73-399 EL PASEO. CASE NOS. VAR 07-01 AND PP 07-08 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did on the 16th day of 4ctober, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of A 8 H Management for the above stated; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 06-78" in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of said Variances: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE: 1. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practicaf difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance codified in this title. • 2:1 Setback Ratio providinct a DavliQht trianqle: Given that the height of the building is proposed to be 29'6", requiring the property owner to comply with a 2:1 setback ratio would create an unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives codified in the Zoning Ordinance and inconsistent with other properties on the EI Paseo corridor. Every two- story building on EI Paseo does not comply with the Code Section. • 2.5' Street Frontaqe setback encroachment: Strict or literaf interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation that provides a 5-foot setback for General Commercial buildings is not consistent with other street corners on EI Paseo and negatively impacts the proposed project. The increased existing property setback is greater than every other � � , PLANNING COMMISSION RES4LUTION NO. 2457 corner and the project wouid be negatively impacted should the 5-foot street frontage setback be enforced. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicabie to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. • 2:1 Setback Ratio providinq a Davliqht trianqle: Strict compliance of the Code Section 25.28.060 for a 2:1 street frontage setback ratio is not applicable to properties on EI Paseo, and has not been enforced in the past due to its preclusion of the construction of any two-story structure on the EI Paseo corners. • 2.5' Street frontaqe setback encroachment: Due to its unusual and exceptional property line dedication, that is inconsistent with other properties in the district, and that a resulting sidewalk would be inconsistent with aN other properties on EI Paseo, the 5' setback would negatively impact the proposed project. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone. • 2:1 Setback Ratio providinq a Davlictht trianqle: The strict and literal enforcement of C-1 Code Section 25.28.060 would deny the applicant privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the EI Paseo district. While the subject property is not technically unusual as compared with other properties along EI Paseo, conformance to the 2:1 ratio street frontage setback ratio is not applicable to any property fronting EI Paseo and would be inconsistent with economic and architectural intent for this district. Where other properties have been granted variances, successful and attractive two story businesses along EI Paseo have been constructed. It would appear that not granting the variance would deny the applicant privileges enjoyed by other property owners along EI Paseo. These exceptional circumstances make it unfeasible to deny the variance. • 2.5' Street FrontaQe setback encroachment: The literal interpretation of Code Section 25.28.060 providing for a 5-foot street frontage setback in a C-1 General Commercial Zone would create an asymmetrical pathway on the Lupine Lane - EI Paseo corner. The sidewalk would be fourteen and a half feet (14.5') on the E! Paseo side and seventeen feet (17') on the Lupine Lane side. Allowing the sidewa(k to be wider and the storefront to be setback visually farther from the curb could impede the intended aim of the storefront presence and adversely affect its success. Altowing the building to encroach into the required 5' setback by two-feet six-inches 2 � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 245T (2'6"), ensures a unified and comprehensive impact and street charisma, and by not allowing would deprive the applicant this privilege enjoyed by others with EI Paseo storefronts. 4. That the granting of the variance or adjustment wifl not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or we{fare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • 2:1 Setback Ra#io providinq a Davliqht trianqle: Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or , materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed two-story commerciaf building will update the appearance of the corner with fresh look and bring the site into compliance with the zoning ordinance requirement that EL Paseo remain an attractive exciting pedestrian venue. • Street Frontaqe setback encroachment: Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Granting of the variance will ensure a lasting, aesthetic and economic improvement to the general vicinity. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of al! interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of said Precise Plan: 1. The proposed Precise Plan requires the approval of two variances, and the findings necessary for those variances have been met. 2. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed project will be an improvement and is consistent with the surrounding uses and complies with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitatians are true and co�rect and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of Case Nos. VAR 07-01 and PP 07-08 is recommended to City Council, subject to the attached conditions. 3 PLANNING COMMISS(ON RESOLUTICIN NO. 2457 PASSED. APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 16th day of October, 2007, by the fo(lowing vote, to wit: AYES: LIMONT, SCHMIDT, TANNER, TSCHOPP, CAMPBELL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE , � SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: � � � IAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission � 4 PLANNiNG COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2457 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. VAR 07-01 AND PP 07-08 Department of Communitv Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. The applicant shall construct a six-foot wide sidewalk along the property's frontage as shown on the project site plan. 2. The applicant shall submit to the City of Pafm Desert an in-lieu parking fee in the amount of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) to provide for the purchase of a Courtesy Cart and one year operation, or at the City's discretion, to be used toward construction of a public parking structure at a future date. 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits andlor clearance from the following agencies: Coachella VaAey Water District Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission City Fire Marshal Pub{ic Works Department 6. Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 7. Access to trash/service areas shall be piaced so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by appticable waste company and Department of , Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 8. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. 9. All sidewalk plans shail be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to final Architectural Review Commission submittal. 5 i � PLANNlNG COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2457 10. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringe-Toed Lizard, TUMF, School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees. 11. Any and all proposed outdoor lighting shall comply with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.16. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan prepared by a qualified lighting engineer shall be submitted to staff for approval. 12. All roof top equipment shall be screened from all views. The applicant shall provide building sections and/or line of sight drawings to illustrate that all roof top equipment is screened from all views. 13. A Conditional Use Permit is required for any and all outdoor sales of arts, crafts, clothing, goods, and any other merchandise. 14. Delivery hours shall be limited to 7:00 am to 10:00 pm. 15. All conditions of approval shall be recorded before any building permits are issued. Evidence of recordation shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development/Planning. 16. In the event that a parking problem (as determined by the Director of Public Works) arises, the property owner shall prepare and submit to the City of Palm Desert a parking management plan, acceptable to the Director of Community Development, to resolve the problem. Said parking management plan shall be based on a parking study and is required to mitigate parking shortfalls during peak demand hours. Department of Public Works: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. All landscape maintenance shall be pe►formed by the property owner who shall maintain the landscaping per the City approved landscape document package for the life of the project, consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ord. 801). 2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. BONDS AND FEES 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 6 � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2457 5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 6. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 7. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. 8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 10. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 11. Landscape installation shall be drought tolerant in nature and in accordance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (24.04}. 12. Landscape, grading, and utility plans shall be submitted for review concurrently. 13. Full public improvements, as required by Section 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 14. All pubiic improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shali be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No occupancy permit shall be granted until public improvements have been completed. 15. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Pubfic Works Department. 16. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as wel! as Section 24.20, Storm water Management and Discharge Control. 17. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge 7 i I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2457 Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials. SPECIAL CONDtTIONS 18. Project shall record a reciprocal parking and access agreement with property to the west prior to issuance of grading pennit. Department of Buildin� and Safetv: 1. Project must conform to the City of Palm Desert adopted codes at the time of plan check submittal. Currently the reference codes are: 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (Based on 1997 UBC) 2001 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (Based on 2000 UMC) 2001 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (Based on 2000 UPC) 2004 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (Based on 2002 NEC) 2005 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 2001 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in every building (except R3 occupancies) where the total accumulation of gross floor area is 3000 square feet or more. (Reference City of Palm Desert Ordinance 1054). 3. A disabled access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to the Dept of Building and Safety for plan review of the site accessibility requirements as per 2001 CBC Chapter 11 B. 3. A!I contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 4. All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 5. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. '1006. You may request a copy of the Ordinance at the Building Department. Riverside Countv Fire Deaartment: 1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2457 accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized Fire Pratection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is pfaced on the job site. 3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings. 4. The required flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant (s) 4" x 2 '/2 "x 2'/�', located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular trave{-way. 5. Water P1ans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system wil! produce the required fire flow. 6. InstaN a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. Al) valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 7. All valves controlling the water suppiy for automatic sprinkler systems and Water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9. 8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per MFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 10. AI{ building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street, the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial developments. 11. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 12. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 9 , � PIANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2457 Coachella Vallev Water District: 1. The District shall furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. 2. The District requires restaurants to install a grease interceptor, including a sample box, sanitary tee and running trap with cleanout, prior to any discharge to its sanitation facilities. The size of the grease interceptor will be determined and approve by the District. Installation of the interceptor shall be inspected by the District. 3. Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. 10 . �: ���-� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 16, 2007 CASE NOS: VAR 07-01 and PP 07-08 REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Council of Palm Desert for: the approval of a Variance to Section 25.28.060 Minimum Street Frontage Setback of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an encroachment into the required 2:1 street frontage setback ratio and to allow a two-foot six-inch (2'6") encroachment into the minimum five—foot (5') street frontage setback; and a precise plan to construct a 15,499 square foot two-story commercial retail restaurant building including a 36-foot tower element located at 73-399 EI Paseo on the southwest corner of Lupine Lane and EI Paseo. APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: ARCHITECT: A & H Management Prest •Vuksic 210 E. Olympic Blvd. 44-530 San Pablo Ave Ste. 220 Los Angeles, CA 90015 Palm Desert, CA 92260 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Approval of Variance (VAR 07-01) and Precise Plan (PP 07-08) would allow the Planning Commission to waive the required Zoning Ordinance Section 25.28.060, Minimum Street Frontage Setback, regarding the 2:1 ratio street frontage setback and the five-foot (5') minimum street frontage setback and to approve plans for a new two- story 15,499 square foot commercial retaiVrestaurant on a lot that could otherwise not be developed in keeping with the predominant massing and density of parcels on EI Paseo.. In addition, the request asks the Planning Commission to approve the parking analysis as a pedestrian-oriented project; under the criteria of a "mix of uses" in the EI Paseo Commercial Overlay Zone and in the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan. The approval would find that the criteria of 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. and the 20% of shared parking allowance would be in conformance the Palm Desert Commercial Core ( _ Staff Report Case Nos. VAR 07-01 and PP 07-08 October 16, 2007 Page 2 of 13 Area Specific Plan and with the intent of Zoning Ordinance Section 25.29 EI Paseo Pedestrian Commercial Overlay Zone. The success of a pedestrian commercial d'+strict is dependent upon the creation and maintenance of a continuous succession of diverse but compatible businesses, which attract and sustain pedestrian interest. Project approval would also include a Reciprocal Parking Agreement to ensure that the shared rear parking lot would dedicate shared parking in perpetuity with the proposed new building. II. BACKGROUND: The request for above listed entitlements for a new two-story, multi-tenant building proposes to demolish an existing single-story restaurant building formerly known as Picanha. The existing building is on the southwest corner of EI Paseo and Lupine Lane. The current architecture is French revival, stucco-covered and is finished with a metallic mansard roof. The existing building has a circular driveway for guests to access the valet. A. Exiting Parking Conditions The "over-all site plan" for the project shown in the submitted booklet illustrates three buildings on two adjacent properties. A & H Management, applicant, owns the two adjoining properties. The three buildings on the two lots have been assigned numbers for the purpose of discussion. The existing westerly building, illustrated as "Building 1", and most of the second building, illustrated as "Building 2", have a parking lot in the rear with 96 parking spaces. The current Picanha building, (Building 3), is located within the same property lines as the adjacent two-story building, (Building 2), to the west. Building 2 is currently named "Colonnade". Presently, Picanha (Building 3) shares common parking with the existing Colonnade (Building 2) directly behind these two buildings. Additionally, at this time, parking for the Picanha Restaurant (Bldg 3), part of Colonnade (Bldg 2} and all of Building #1 is shared in the larger parking lat to the west directly behind Building #1. B. Existing Site and Grade Conditions The following data describes the property line dedication and grade change information regarding proposed demolition and new construction on the corner of EI Paseo and Lupine Lane: • The existing property line along Lupine Lane was dedicated as twelve feet (12'0") from the curb. ; . Staff Report Case Nos. VAR 07-01 and PP 07-08 October 16, 2007 Page 11 of 13 The project as proposed intends to utilize 21 spaces along the shared project's street frontages, and ancillary parking anywhere along EI Paseo as weli as incidental parking available in the City's public parking areas, in addition to the 122 parking spaces located to the rear of Buildings 1 and 2. In the past, mix-use restaurandretail projects having frontages along EI Paseo have met a 4/1000 parking criteria, as per the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan; as the entire district is pedestrian oriented and variety of uses and destinations has been encouraged. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission also find in accordance with the intention of Zoning Ordinance Section 25.29 "EI Paseo Pedestrian Commercial Overlay Zone". Historically, mixed used shopping centers on EI Paseo have succeeded with parking at 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet and 20% of the center used for restaurants. For example, EI Paseo Square where the Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf is located and The Gardens on EI Paseo are two examples where the parking was allowed to remain at the 4/1000 standard. There are no restaurants on EI Paseo that meet the stand-alone parking requirements. As a result of the existing pattern of buildings and the desire to maintain the district as a pedestrian oriented destination, older buildings, which no longer conform to present standards, dominate various blocks of the EI Paseo district. Inability to comply with the current parking requirements actually acts as a disincentive for new investment, causing a cycle of decline, which causes properties to deteriorate further as well as to depreciate adjacent buildings. The proposed project would allow the district a manageable product within the framework of past approvals and the intent of continued success of the EI Paseo Pedestrian Overlay District. C. In Lieu Parking Fee: Technically, on-street parking may not be counted towards meeting the requirements of a proposed project. However, Section 25.58.330 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for payment of in-fieu fees in commercial districts where insufficient off-street parking is provided. Staff would recommend that an in-lieu parking fee of seventy-five thousand ($75,000.00) dollars be collected to provide for the purchase of an EL Paseo Courtesy Cart and one year of operating expenses for the new cart, or construction of a public parking structure in the future, to further reinforce the intent of the pedestrian experience for this Zone. ( ( . Staff Report Case Nos. VAR 07-01 and PP 07-08 October 16, 2007 Page 12 of 13 E. Reciprocal Parking Agreement: The new Colonnade project would require recordation of a Reciprocal Parking Agreement in order to satisfy staff's concerns regarding future parking shortages in an already impacted district. A condition of approval addressing the issue has been submitted from the Department of Public Works that reads: Project shall record a reciprocal parking and access agreement with property to the west prior to issuance of grading permit. F. Environmental Review: For purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed project is a Class 3 categorical exemption per Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) V. CONCLUSION: Approval of the Variance and Precise Plan as a whole would contribute positively to the existing streetscape, inviting new tenants and a new dining destination to the district. VI. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. approving VAR 07-01 and PP 07-08. t ( ' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO SECTION 25.28.060 MINIMUM STREET FRONTAGE SETBACK OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED 2:1 STREET FRONTAGE SETBACK RATIO AND TO ALLOW A TWO-FOOT SIX-INCH (2'6") ENCROACHMENT INTO THE MINIMUM FIVE—FOOT (5') STREET FRONTAGE SETBACK, AND APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 15,499 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL RETAIL RESTAURANT BUILDING INCLUDING A 36-FOOT TOWER ELEMENT LOCATED AT 73-399 EL PASEO. CASE NOS. VAR 07-01 AND PP 07-08 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of October, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of A & H Management for the above stated; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 06-78" in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of said Variances: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE: 1. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance codified in this title. • 2:1 Setback Ratio providinp a Davliqht trianqle: Given that the height of the building is proposed to be 29'6", requiring the property owner to comply with a 2:1 setback ratio would create an unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives codified in the Zoning Ordinance and inconsistent with other properties on the EI Paseo corridor. Every two- story building on EI Paseo does not comply with the Code Section. • 2.5' Street Frontaqe setback encroachment: Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation that provides a 5-foot setback for General Commercial buildings is not consistent with other street corners on EI Paseo and negatively impacts the proposed project. The increased existing property setback is greater than every other � �� � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. corner and the project would be negatively impacted should the 5-foot street frontage setback be enforced. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. • 2:1 Setback Ratio providinq a Davliqht trianqle: Strict compliance of the Code Section 25.28.060 for a 2:1 street frontage setback ratio is not applicable to properties on EI Paseo, and has not been enforced in the past due to its preclusion of the construction of any two-story structure on the EI Paseo corners. • 2.5' Street frontaqe setback encroachment: Due to its unusual and exceptional property line dedication, that is inconsistent with other properties in the district, and that a resulting sidewalk would be inconsistent with all other properties on El Paseo, the 5' setback would negatively impact the proposed project. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone. • 2:1 Setback Ratio providinq a Davliqht trianqle: The strict and literal enforcement of C-1 Code Section 25.28.060 would deny the applicant privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the EI Paseo district. While the subject property is not technically unusual as compared with other properties along EI Paseo, conformance to the 2:1 ratio street frontage setback ratio is not applicable to any property fronting EI Paseo and would be inconsistent with economic and architectural intent for this district. Where other properties have been granted variances, successful and attractive two story businesses along EI Paseo have been constructed. It would appear that not granting the variance would deny the applicant privileges enjoyed by other property owners along EI Paseo. These exceptional circumstances make it unfeasible to deny the variance. • 2.5' Street Frontaqe setback encroachment: The literal interpretation of Code Section 25.28.060 providing for a 5-foot street frontage setback in a C-1 General Commercial Zone would create an asymmetrical pathway on the Lupine Lane - EI Paseo corner. The sidewalk would be fourteen and a half feet (14.5') on the EI Paseo side and seventeen feet (17') on the Lupine Lane side. Allowing the sidewalk to be wider and the storefront to be setback visually farther from the curb could impede the intended aim of the storefront presence and adversely affect its success. Allowing the building to encroach into the required 5' setback by two-feet six-inches 2 �� � � PLANNING COMMISSiON RESOLUTION NO. (2'6"), ensures a unified and comprehensive impact and street charisma, and by not allowing would deprive the applicant this privilege enjoyed by others with EI Paseo storefronts. 4. That the granting of the variance or adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • 2:1 Setback Ratio providinq a Davliqht trianqle: Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed two-story commercial building will update the appearance of the corner with fresh look and bring the site into compliance with the zoning ordinance requirement that EL Paseo remain an attractive exciting pedestrian venue. • Street Frontaqe setback encroachment: Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Granting of the variance will ensure a lasting, aesthetic and economic improvement to the general vicinity. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Pfanning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of said Precise Plan: 1. The proposed Precise Plan requires the approval of two variances, and the findings necessary for those variances have been met. 2. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed project will be an improvement and is consistent with the surrounding uses and complies with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Cafifornia, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of Case Nos. VAR 07-01 and PP 07-08 is recommended to City Council, subject to the attached conditions. 3 � ( � � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 16th day of October, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 4 ( ( � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. VAR 07-01 AND PP 07-08 Department of Communitv Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. The applicant shall construct a six-foot wide sidewalk along the property's frontage as shown on the project site plan. 2. The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Desert an in-lieu parking fee in the amount of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) to provide for the purchase of a Courtesy Cart and one year operation, or at the City's discretion, to be used toward construction of a public parking structure at a future date. 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department 6. Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 7. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable waste company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 8. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. 9. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to final Architectural Review Commission submittal. 5 � � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringe-Toed Lizard, TUMF, School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees. 11. Any and all proposed outdoor lighting shall comply with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.16. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan prepared by a qualified lighting engineer shall be submitted to staff for approval. 12. All roof top equipment shall be screened from all views. The applicant shall provide building sections and/or line of sight drawings to illustrate that all roof top equipment is screened from all views. 13. A Conditional Use Permit is required for any and all outdoor sales of arts, crafts, clothing, goods, and any other merchandise. 14. Delivery hours shall be limited to 7:00 am to 10:00 pm. 15. All conditions of approval shall be recorded before any building permits are issued. Evidence of recordation shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development/Planning. Department of Public Works: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. All landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner who shall maintain the landscaping per the City approved landscape document package for the life of the project, consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ord. 801). 2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. BONDS AND FEES 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 6. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits 6 ( ( � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 7. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. 8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. Any and all offsite improvements shafl be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 10. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 11. Landscape installation shall be drought tolerant in nature and in accordance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (24.04). 12. Landscape, grading, and utility plans shall be submitted for review concurrently. 13. Full public improvements, as required by Section 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 14. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No occupancy permit shall be granted until pubiic improvements have been completed. 15. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department. 16. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management and Discharge Control. 17. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials. 7 � ( ( � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 18. Project shall record a reciprocal parking and access agreement with property to the west prior to issuance of grading permit. Department of Buildinq and Safetv: 1. Project must conform to the City of Palm Desert adopted codes at the time of plan check submittal. Currently the reference codes are: 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (Based on 1997 UBC) 2001 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (Based on 2000 UMC) 2001 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (Based on 2000 UPC) 2004 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (Based on 2002 NEC) 2005 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 2001 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in every building (except R3 occupancies) where the total accumulation of gross floor area is 3000 square feet or more. (Reference City of Palm Desert Ordinance 1054). 3. A disabled access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to the Dept of Building and Safety for plan review of the site accessibility requirements as per 2001 CBC Chapter 11 B. 3. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 4. All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 5. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1006. You may request a copy of the Ordinance at the Building Department. Riverside County Fire Department: 1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction af all buildings per UFC article 87. 8 � � � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings. 4. The required flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant (s) 4" x 2 '/z "x 2'/2", located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travel-way. 5. Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9. 8. Instafl a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per MFPA 10, but not less than one 2A106C extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 10. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior wafts of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street, the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial developments. 11. All buildings shall have il�uminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 12. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. Coachella Vallev Water District: 1. The District shall furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. 9 r � � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2. The District requires restaurants to install a grease interceptor, including a sample box, sanitary tee and running trap with cleanout, prior to any discharge to its sanitation facilities. The size of the grease interceptor will be determined and approve by the District. Installation of the interceptor shall be inspected by the District. 3. Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. 10 ( � CITY OF PAL1A DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.VAR 07-01 PP 07-08 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIYEN that a public hearir�will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request for Colo�nade by A & H Manaqement for approval of a Variance ro allow a two-story buildin� to encroach into the 2:1 Dayliflht Triangle and to encroach into the five-foot street side setback, and a request to consider a Precise Plan to constn�ct a two-story 15,459 square foot retail and restaurant building located on the southwest comer of EI Paseo and Lupine Lane at 73-399 EI Paseo. � � rr�r—�A1(ooR y ��'� f �-.� r--t_._� � l.—L.J w � � ' � � �� Q •TAl!l1WY1/1�� STA7EkIM�ff}� DEffc CR dL Mi[O fl�AiEO V ? i� �� 9 � � Q � � naoow wou tnr�o � ,as u�nrE�s SAID public hearing will be held on October 16, 2007, at6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center,73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,Califomia,at which dme and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments conceming all items covered by this public hearing noUce shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Infortnatbn conceminp the proposed project and/or negathre deciaratbn is avallable for review in the Department of Communiry Devebpment at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m, and 5:00 p.m. Monday through FrWay. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raisinfl only those issues you or someo�e else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written conespondence delivered to the Planning Commission(or City Counciq at,or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary October 5,2007 Palm Desert Planning Commission . . ( . PALM QESERT COMMERClAL CORE AREA SPEClF1C PLAN PALM DE5ERT REOEVELOPMENT AGfNCY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY OEVEIOPMEN7 AND PLANNING Prepared by: Richard Sparks , Chetrman , Commercial Co�e ProJect Area Comm. Carlos Ortega, Exec . Oir. , Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Ramon Diaz , Oirector, Dept . of Communtty Dev. /Planning Philtp Orell . ProJect Ma�eger Oavid Yrigoyen , Administrative Ass ( stant Marie Hunt , Secretary Edna Cochrane, Secretary Adopted by C1ty Council end Redevelo�ment Agency Board July 23, 1987 7A8LE OF CONTENTS Page No . INTROOUCTION � BACKGROUND 2 GENERAL POLICIES 5 Area A. North Hlghway lll /Alessandro 6 Area 8 . South Highway lil - Desert Sun Buildtng to EI Paseo 14 Area C. South Highway lll /EI Paseo to Mo�te�ey Avenue 15 Area D . Gateways 24 EXHIBITS A - BOUNDARY MAP B - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN C - PROGRAM PRIORITIES D - El PASEO PEDESTRtAN COMMERCIAL OVERLAY ZONE ( � � V PALM OESERT COMMERCtAL CORE AR£A SPECiFIC PIAN [ NTRODUCTION In F'ebruary of 1986, the City Council /Redevelopment Agency Board appointed a 30-member citizens ' advisory committee to make recommendations concerntng land use policies and redevelopment prtorities for the City ' s commerc { al core. The proJect a�ea genera { ly included properties fronting on Highway lll , E1 Paseo and Alessandro Drlve . Staff support for the commlttee Nas provided by the Oepartment of Communfty Development/Planning, the Redevelopment Agency and the Depertment of Publlc Works . Consisttng of business owners , property owners and residents , the Committee met on a weekly basts between March and December 1986 tdentifying and discussing critical tssues and formulating policies and implementetton recommendattons . The general policy and imp { ementatton strategies contained in the Plan are designed to maximize the ProJect Area ' s potentlal for high quality economic development compatlble with Palm Desert ' s overal l communfty goels and self imege. The Plan is primarily a policy guide although 1t also contains conceptual descriptions and illustratfons as to hoN specific programs could be implemented. Actual program design and implementation will be subJect to a conttnuing process of analysis and review tailoring each program a�d pro�ect to the unique circumstances and requirernents of property owners , residents , developers and the Redevelopment Agency with a particular sub-area . 1 t BACKGROUNO �� Development in what aould become Palm Desert Commerctal Core first occurred on the north side of HighNay 111 durtng the 1940 ' s and 1950' s . Slowly , development emphasis shifted south across Highway 111 to El Paseo . during the 1960 ' s and early 1970 ' s . HighWay 111 became increasingly dominated by offices , service , automottve and construction related commercial . El Paseo developed a high-end specialty retatl ortentatfon . When the City of Palm Desert incorporated in 1973, the upgrading and redesfgn of the commerctal core was one of the first prior- ities . The initial emphasfs was placed on lmproving safety of access to and from Highway 111 bustnesses . As originally designed. two-way frontage roads Nith unrestricted cross-street access served both sides of Highway 111 . Safety concerns generated by traffic confltcts betNeen frontege road, Highway lll and cross-street traffic eventually led to an extensive redesign in 1979 . The two-way system was chenged to one-way with .sl ip �amps from Highway 1l1 a�d 1 imtted movements at intersecttons . Although addressing safety problems , the one-way solution created stgnificant access problems for Highway 111 bustnesses . An important component of the original frontage road redesign plan tncluded tf�e improvement of rear clrculation and access through improved rear parking areas . In 1980 , the Redevelopment Agency participated in the reorganfzetion end reconstructlon of the rear lots on the south side of Highway 111 between Portola 2 � • � f ( Avenue and Larkspur Lane creating the President ' s Plaza . On the north side of Highaay 111 , complicattons and conflicts with , adJacent residential areas prevented lmplementatton of stmilar projects . General dissattsfactfon Ni�th the redesigned frontage �oad system has been a contin� ing sub�ect of controversy tn the communtty. In 1983 . a reexaminatton of, the frontage roads by JEF EngSneering introduced the "superblork co�cept" , where two-way circulation Would be re-established. Mherever posslble, the fro�tage road would be merged into adJacent perking areas . Access at cross streets would be pulled as far away from the Highway 111 inter- sectton as was practical . In 1985, the superblock concept was ftrst successfully implemented on the south stde between larkspur Lane and Lupine Lane. I � additton to the older commerctal area located between Deep Canyon Rosd and Monterey Avenue, the study area includes vacant or recently developed areas at the City' s eastern and aestern geteways . Beginning with the City' s first general plan, these areas have been designated either for pla��ed regtonat commercial or hotel /restaurant resort development. The construction of the Palm Desert Town Center in 1983 at the northwest corner of Highway I11 and Mo�terey established Palm Desert as the regional retail growth center of the Coachella Valiey. The devetopment of the hotel / resteurent parcels hes been slower . Embassy Suites , Contfnental lnn and Vacation Inn have been built et Ctty' s eastern gateway. 3 � ( r . As a result of Palm Desert ' s emergence as the commerctal resort ` growth ce�ter , intense development interest is being generated throughout the study area . These growth pressures present the Ctty and Redevelopme�t Agency with considerable opportunities , as well as potential problems . To properly channel these growth forces a�d promote new development and redevelopment consistent wlth the community' s goals and self- image, the need for clearly enunciated land use polictes and redeveiopment priorities has become evldent . in examtning the area' s development trends , the Committee raised the foilowing area-wide policy questions : 1 . What role should the City/Redevelopment (RDA) play in implementing the Plan end promoting or asststing positive development in the area ? What wiii the prlvate sector' s responsibility be? 2 . How should the regulatory process ba { ance economfc , development goals against the potenttel negative impacts which accompany growth? 3 . The study erea contains several distinct subareas Nhose speciflc geography offers varytng constraints and potentials for development . What type of uses should be promoted in each of the subareas vta the planning process or redevelopment programs? Should some uses be discouraged? 4 . , ( GENERAL POLICIES [ . Economtc Growthlimpacts Salance The overall goal of the City ' s planning and redevetop- ment policles 1n the study area shail be the promotton of high quality compattble economtc growth . Emphasis should be placed on solving potential parking or traffic problems in a positive manner rather then through restricttons on the level of economic a�tivity. JI . The Role of the City/RDA The City/ROA shall take an active role in the promotion end asslstance Nherever it is cleariy demonstreble that a particular development will result In substantfal economic beneflts for the RDA , general bustness community or will otherwise implement cornmunity goals . A. The RDA shall spec ( fically perttcipete in Plan tmpie- me�tation through the following activities and actions : i . Relocetion or construction of off- site publtc improveme�ts tncluding but not limited to curbs , gutters , pub11C rlght-of-way paving , dratnage structures . utllities , perking lats and landscaping. 2 . Use of the power of Eminent Domatn to acquire and consolidate parcels specifically required for the logical and orderly implementation of the Pian . 3 . in proJects involving RDA partfcipation , ail reasonable efforts shall be pursued by the RDA to 5 ,. matntain the econorntc v ( ab ( lity of extsttng - tenants at thetr present locations or relocation to equally destrable areas tn the vtcinity. B. Private proJect developers shall be responsible for all property acquisition and on-site development costs directly attributable to their pro,�ect. IIi . Plan Consistency Al1 development proposals within the ProJect Area shall be consistent with the polictes of this Core Commerclal Area Specific P1an ihereinafter referred to as the "Plan") . IV. Subarea Oevelopment Policies To formulate specific polictes, the study area was dlvided i�to fou� suba�eas. A. North Highway I11 /Alessandro B. South Highway llt - Desert Sun Building to EI Peseo C. South Highway I11 /E1 Paseo east to Monterey D. Gateways - Monte�ey West and Deep Canyon East Area A . North H ighr+ay ! 1 1JA 1 essa�dro This area contains e diverse mixture of new and old butldtngs and vacant lots. The Highway 111 butidings are served by a frontage road, which currently allows tao-aay traffic between Deep Canyon Road and Cabriilo Avenue, the one -way from Cabrfllo to Las Palmas , then returns to tNo-way west to Monterey . Highway 111 lots vary in depth from 125 ft . to 140 ft. These lots back onto Alessandro Drive which extends from Deep Canyon to San Pablo. West of 6 r 5an Pablo , only a narrow ailey separates the comrnerctal from a sparsely developed oider , single-famtly subdtvision . The Committee ident { fied four specific issues impacting this area : 1 . Frontage roed access 2 . Shallowness and fragmented commerctal lots limiting substantial high quality development 3 . Replecement or remodeling of obsolete or nonco�formtng buildings 4 . Land use conflicts between expandtng commercial uses and residentiel area to the north Issue 1 . Fronta9e Road Access The current frontage road system continues to be a source of conflict and controversy in the business community . While the two-aay circulation east of Cabrillo Avenue and west of Las Palmas represents an improvement over the one - way system , significent tnefflciencles continue to exist . Access to rear parking areas is still difficult . Frontage road/cross street intersections continue to De a source of trafftc sefety conflict . Issue 2. Llmtted Depth of Commerctel Zone The lot depth in this area varles between 125 ft . and 140 ft . To meet parking requirements , buildings are usual ly f im ( ted to � the front 50 feet leaving little room for future expansion . More ambitious proJects 7 ( are either requtred to devote several Highway 111 frontage lots to perking or develop parking on the north side of Alessandro Drive . It is not particularly efficte�t to use htgh visibility highv+ay frontage lots for parking . [ t is also poor planning to requi �e pedestrtans to cross a 60 ' right-of-way to get from a parking lot to their destination . The north side of Alessandro Drive, presently zoned multt - family restdential is s patchwork of agtng apartments , abando�ed single famtly homes , converted offices , commercial parking lots and vacant lots . The unsightly rear entrences and storage yards of Highway t11 businesses have discouraged new Alessandro residenttal development. Ltmited lot depth and destgn restrictions assoctated wtth developing adJacent to single family has stifled commercial development other than parking lots . West of San Pablo where Alessandra is rep{aced by a 20 - foot alley , slmllar conflicts have placed constraints on commerctai development as Neil as negatively impacting the ad3acent single famtly zone. A new bank bu t 1 t on the northeast corner of Highway I11 and Monterey Was forced to devote tNo-thfrds of their Highway I11 frontage to parking . The lack of an adequate buffer between the growing commercfal erea and the single family zone to the north has inhtbtted 8 , � � new resident ( al devetopment on numerous vacant lots and contr i buted to the deter iorat ion of many of the existing residences . i ssue 3 . Rep 1 acemer�t or Remode 1 i ng of Obso 1 ete or No�co�fo�mtng_ Butldings ( n various blocks there are sections dominated by older buildings which due to their original design or lack of maintenance no longer conform to present standards . ExistTng polictes provide little ince�tive for owners to improve these properties. The inabllity to compiy with current parkfng requirements actually ects as e dtsincentive for new investment . This creates a cycle of decline which causes the properties ta deterlorate further as weli as deprectati �g adJacent buildings . Issue 4. Commercta�Residential Confiicts ' Residenttel areas adJecent to the study erea will be increasingly subJect to negattve impacts as the intensity of commercial activity inc�eases . This situation is aggrevated by the present lack of a dtstinct boundary between the two uses . lnsensitivity to these �egative impacts of treffic , noise, invasfon of p�- tvacy and stght line vteW obstructions aill cause the detertoreting situatton on Alessandro to spread further beck into the single-family zone. [deally, the transitton from commercial to residential should 9 , 1 be designed so both uses can co-exist enC prosper . 1 . GENERAL POLICY The entire Highway lll /Alessandro area . Deep Canyon to Monterey, shall be redeveloped according to the superbiock concept with improved access and safety , increased parking with an adequate landscaped buffer zone between commercial and restdential zones . 2 . SPEC [FIC POLiCIES a. Frontage roeds shall be converted to two-way superblock access isles . b. Extsttng Highwey I11 /Frontage �oad slip ramps shall be replaced with midblock right turn in/out superblock entrances. c. Where feasible , exiting frontage road cross- street intersections shall be closed or restrlcted with circulation directed north toward superblock. d. Alessandro Dr1ve shell be narroaed and redestgned to better tntegrate p�operties on the north side of the street into the superblock concept and allow for a wider buffer zone edJacent to restdential uses . e. The Palma Vt ) lage Plan recommendation to expand the commercfal zone north of the alley between Monterey Avenue and Las Palmas one l0 r . lot for the purpose of creatton of off-street parking and a landscaped buffer shall be tmplemented. f. Bet►reen San Car 1 os Avenue and Cabr i 1 1 0 Avenue , the commercial zone shail be expanded to i nc 1 ude 1 ots on the north s tde of Alessa�d�o to an average depth of t20 feet . These lots shall become part of the super- biock e �d shall be used primarily for parktng and a landscaped greenbelt adJacent to the stngle femily zone . East of Cabrillo Avenue high density garden apartments shall be encoureged to infill the rematning lots . The vacant parcel on Deep Cenyon may be incorporated Into e la� ger commerciel development in con3unction with a proJect on Highway I11 . g. Local �esidenttal streets may be cui -de-sac'd north of the superblock , if deemed desireble by affected property owners end residents . h. Incentives shaii be created to encourege the remodeling or replaceme�t of obsolete older buildings and uses . 3 . IMPLEMENTA710N The City/ROA s'hali facilitate the creatton of superbiocks through the followtng actta�s : Il " i a . Rezone north side of Alessandro cons ( stent wfth the above-descrtbed policies . b. Asstst in the acqutsition a�d consoltdation of small parcels necessary for logical and orderly Plan implementation . c . Conduct englneering and traffic studles �ecessary for the conversion of the frontage �oeds . d. Establish program for frontage road/access isle conversion . Priority shall be placed 1n areas where there is also strong interest tn privately financed redevelopment activtty. e. Develop an owner particlpation program linking private improvements to public improvements . f. Alessandro shail be redesigned to be more compatible wtth the superblock concept . To fecilitate the orderly tmplementatton of the rear superblock parking concept . the RDA may have to acqutre and develop parktng factlit- ies not dtrectly associated with any spectfic private developme�t . ROA sha { 1 be reimbursed for these costs through the payment of 1n iieu parking fees assessed on future constr- uctton , expansion or increased commercfal activity in the area . l2 • i. . g . Area wil { be maintained through parking maintenance assessment dlstrict . h . Area-aide publtc directional stgnage program shall be deveioped , clearly fdentifying biock addresses and parking lot locattons . 4 . SPECIAL IMPLEMEN7ATION POLICY AND PROGRAM FOR TRANSITIONAL SINGLE-fAMILY USES Ultimate implementation of the Plan Nill involve the conversion of some single-family residential properties to commerctal uses , the ttming of which will depend upon the inftSative and market demands of commerclal development . Full plan implernentation could occur over a ten - year period . This transitional period between plan adoption and implementatton can ttself produce stgntffcent negative tmpacts for this residentiai properties co�trary to the intent of the Plan. While these properties may not yet be merketable for commercial use, the uncertein timetable also ltmits thetr residential marketabtlity. Since the quality of the existing residential improve- ments aill bear Iittle relatlonship to the properties ' future commercial value, matntenance is likely to suffer leading to detertoration and associated negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood . To relieve the burden of uncertainty from these t3 single-family owners and residents and to promote an orderly and humane transitton , the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) shall offer to purchase impacted single - famlly homes prior to future cornmercfal conversion. Fifteen homes have been identified as potentially impacted . They would continue to be maintatned as housing until conversion and wouid be managed by the Riverside County Housing Authority . Through lease beck arrangements , the extsting residents could continue to occupy the dNellings . Reimbursement for holding costs would come from rental income . Eventualiy , the RDA would be compensated by the ultimate commercial developer . Area B . South Highway 11l - Desert Sun Butldtnq_to EI Paseo 1 . Issues The issues confronting this area are not as complex or substential as 1n other sectfons of the study area . With the exceptton of three vacant parcels most of the erea has been built out N (th acceptable stte planntng and parking. A ma�ority of the buildings have been constructed since incorporation and meet current standards . The erea fs served by a two-way frontage roed. As it has become more developed , ( ncreasing l4 • � ( traffic conflicts have developed at the cross- street intersections of E1 Paseo and at Deep Canyon. frontage road traffic attempting to cross or turn must contend with at least five other conflfcting movements . 2 . Policies a. E x i s t t n g 1 a n d u s e po 1 i c 1 e s s ha 1 I b e maintained. b. Intersection conflicts shall be reduced through supe�block redestgn. Frontage road access shall be limtted at cross-street tntersections and increased through midblock tv+o-way entrances . Frontage road shall be merged with front parking areas ahenever feastbte . 3 . Implementetion a. Conduct detailed englneering studies to constructto� of superblock program. b. Construct specified improvements . Area C. South Hi9hwav 111 /E1 Paseo to Monterey Avenue l . Issues The HighNay 111 /EI Paseo area is the City' s most � intensively developed specialty retail /genera{ commercial district . It fs made up of three subareas , the Highway 111 frontage, President ' s Pleza and EI Paseo . t5 , � ' Highway 111 As ts case on the north slde frontage road , convenient access and safety are maJor issues . How can the free access of a tNo-way system be achieved Nithout the traffic conflicts essocieted with the old system. The south side does beneftt from improved rear access resulting from President ' s Plaza . Where larger parkt�g a�eas are adJacent to the fro�tege �oad, as Is the case wlth the Lucky ' s and Jensen' s supermarkets , the merging of the road and parking lot into a superblock provides a conve� Sent solution. The problems are more complex tn ereas where only butldings front on the road . A combination of restricted access or closure at intersections . constructton of midblock two-way entrances and through circulation into the rear perking areas will provide an acceptable balance of conventence and safety. The converston to two-Nay clrculatton , even 1f all safety p�oblems are soived wili have a significant negative impact on parking supplies in certain blocks since the existing angie parking would be replaced by parallel parking at an approximate SOx loss . In the President ' s Plaza blocks , approx ( mately 70 parking spaces 16 would be lost through conversion to two-way. Also of concern is the general appearance of the area from Higr►way 111 . For many visitors , the impresston created by the Hfghway lll frontage wi11 define thetr image of Pelm Desert . ]t is t he r e f ore i mportant to upgrade the bu i l d t ngs and landscaping in this area to be equal to the new development planned for the Ctty' s gateways and E1 Paseo. Presfdent 's Plaza and other Pa�ktng Issues From its inceptlon � development within the biocks between HlghNay 111 , E1 Paseo, Portola Avenue and La�kspur included provisions for mutual access rear parktng . This arrangement was enforced through mutuai access easements. In 1980 , the RDA participated in a maJor recon- struction and reorganization of the ares creating President ' s Plazes East and West. it was hoped thet the access problems created by the one-aay frontage roads kould be mitigated by convenient and attractive rear access . Buslnesses would be encouraged to improve thetr rear elevations creating an fnvlting pleza atmosphere. Although the lots have functianed very well as a parking facility, they have not become the attractive and invfting plazas o� igtnally envtsioned . Much of ! 7 � I the landscaping has died and has not been replaced . Only a fea of the area' s businesses have made an effort to improve thetr rear �eleva- ttons . While the ortgina! expectetions concerning the compatibility of a parktng lot and a pedestrian environment may have been overly optimistic , there ts sttll conslde �able opportunity for improvements . Developments in other blocks have also included varytng degrees of mutually designed rear parking errengements. Some lots remain distinctly associated with indtvidual butldings . Complete gaps occur where there are vacant lots . Many of these less organized parking arrangements expertence varying levels of main- tenance whtch over ttme might constitute a problem. Parking studies conducted are over the past 3 years have indicated that in most areas there is ample parking to meet present and future needs . Overa l l peak season demand i s onl y 55x of tote l capacity. New proJects built to cur�ent sta�dards should not experience eny problems for the foreseeable future . President ' s Plaza East recelves the highest usage at 76x of capacity. At 85x, finding a space becomes dffficult and the lot begins to appear full . The loss of parking 18 . , � through two-way frontage road redesign could push demand over the 85x levet in this area . Ei Paseo Prior to the constructio� of the Palm Desert Town Ce�te� , EI Paseo was the City' s only maSor retali dlstrict . ( t reme ( ns untque throughout the Coachella Valley as an outdoor urban specialty retail /restaurant boulevard designed on a scale appropriate for the pedest � ian . El Paseo' s ability to successfuliy compete with new planned comme�ctal developments West of Monterey w111 be dependent on continued enhancement of the area' s uniqueness . The pedestrien envir-onment must �ecetve the same atte�tion and be managed with the same degree of skill and expertise as is employed by the Town Center and other new competing retail developments . Essential to a successful pedestrian environment are the followtng: a. Creation of attractive shaded Walkways and rest areas ; b. Eltmination of "dead zones " created by vacant lots � large parking lots and street fronting businesses which do not attract pedestrian traffic ; c . Safe and convenient cross-street pedestrtan l9 / (` ' movement ; � d. Strategic location of "anchor att�actions" to d � aw and suste i n pedestr ten tnterest along the entire length of the street . EI Paseo is in need of improvement in many of these areas . Although some of the newer proJects are well landscaped , other sidewalk areas are rather stark and virtually shadeless . There are few areas for pedestrtans to sit and rest or stmply enJoy the outdoor ame�ittes of the desert climate. While most of the smail vacant parcels are being fiiled in , an entire residential block between Larkspur and Sa� Pablo Avenue presently functions as an ebsolute bar� te� to pedestrtan traffic . The owner of thls ten acre parcel is ettempting to attract maJor commerclal tenants to thls site . This pro,�ect has the potenttal for providing the anchor attracttons . pedestrian plazas and additional off-street public parktng to benefit the entire area. The most s i gn t f i cant lar,dscap 1 ng on E I Paseo i s conteined within an IS-foot Wide median. While this median provldes desirable relief from what wouid othe�wise be continuous 4 lanes of traffic , it does act as a phystcal and visual pedestrian 20 . � ( � barrier . Pedestrians attempttng to cross the street must first contend wtth two lanes of traffic often traveling in excess of 35 mtles per hour , wade through 18 feet of ground cover a�d sh�ubs , then through another two la�es of traffic . 1 . GENERAL POLICY Al1 planning and redevelopment programs shall emphasize the development of El Paseo end Prestdent ' s Plaza as a pedestrian - ortented specialty retail district . 2 . SPECIFIC POLICIES a. Pedestrtan oriented business shall be encouraged to loceted 1n street fronting first floor spaces . b. The RDA shall pursue a streetscape enhance- ment program improving the pedestrtan environment through use of shade trees and other landscaping , street furniture and creation of rest areas . c . Steps shou 1 d be taken to s 1 ow traf f i c on E 1 Peseo and design appropriate facilities for sefe mtdblock pedestrtan cross treffic. d. � The RDA sha 1 1 ass i st i n the deve i opment of the Sun Lodge Colony site pro,ject cansistent with the proJect ' s potential benefits for the RDA and Ei Paseo in general . Emphasis 21 � . shouid be placed on creating a proJect wh ( ch � will act as an "anchor attrection " and . provide a source of convenient off- street multi - level public parking . e. Incentives should be created for the inclusion of public plazas of various sizes within private commerctal development . f. Along Htghway 111 , access and safety shali be improved through implementation of the superblock concept including: ti ) Reinstateme�t of two-Nay circulatton where practical . ( 2 ) Create two-way rnidblock entrance exits . (3) Traffic movements at frontage r.oed/cross- street intersections shall be 1lmited to right turn only or closed completely . Where posslble , traffic connectto�s shell be created between frontage road and rea� pa�king areas to eliminate dead-end isles . ( 4) New and existing rear parking areas shall be redesigned to elloN untfied intercirculation. ( 5 ) The C t ty/RDA sha 1 I create a program to fi I I tn vacant geps in parking lots and sidewalks resulting from vacant parcels . 22 ♦ ( . � 3 . IMPLEMENTATION a. Create speciat pedestrtan commercial ione for Ei Paseo/President ' s Plaza , which Iimtts uses to those conducive to sustaintng pedestrian interest . b. Conduct an urban commercfal landscape study of the EI Paseo/ President ' s Pleza area 1 ead i ng to the redes t gn and enhancement of the pedestrian environment. c. Maximum speed limit on EI Paseo shall� be limited to 25 m11es per hour. d. On blocks greater than 500 feet in length , mfdblock crosswalks shali be created. I� these areas , the sidewalk shall be widened, landscaped and decorattve paving employed to emphasize the right-of-way for pedestrtan treffic . Median design shali be modified to allow pedestrian c�osstng . e. City/RDA shall Nork closely with potenttal developer of Sun Lodge Colony site to successfully implement plan wh1 �h maximizes area-wide benefits . f. The zoning ordlnance shall be amended to provlde incentives in the form of off-st�eet parking requirernent reductions in exchange for the inc { usion of public plazas or 23 � - . � "pocket parks" tn their design . To offset this reduced private parking development , the RDA shall purchase and develop addittonal parking when necessary on less desir�ble commercial property located off E1 Paseo. g. Detatled engtneertng studtes shall be conducted leading to irnplementatton of the fro � tage roed superblock system . See Exhibit 8 (Conceptual Design Plan) . h. Signage Program - Area - wide public directional stgnage program shall be developed clearly tdentifying block addresses and parkt �g lot locetions . Area D. Gateways 1 . Issues Gateways , visitor ' s first exposure to Palm Desert , play a critical raie i � defining the City ' s charecter end tdenttty . In additton to � communicating an overall impression of quallty, 1t is lmportant for gateways to emphastze that one is entering a unique and distfnctive community. At the City ' s western gateway , the Las Sombras Restaurant Park built in 1980 was constructed wtth a fundamental site planning flaw which detracts frorn the developments eppearance , as 24 _ , �. ''s well as befng detrimental to the success of many of the tenants . The proJect was buitt backWard with fnferio� �ear elevations facing Highway 111 . On the east side of Highway 111 , an ambitious Raffles Hotel restaurant / resort commercial pro,ject is planned. D i rect 1 y south of the Las Sombras proJect i s a lerge 32 -acre vacant site for which nume�ous unsuccessful development proposals have been submitted. PIa�ning on this slte ts complicated by a 1 . 8 acre pie-shaped tthe Hoams Pool site) , separately owned, nonconforming developed parcel ptercSng the parcei ' s lower quarter . Further south , ecross the Palm Valley Storm Channel , a 12-acre vacant parcel elso has had a controversial development history which tncluded denial of two maJor commercial deve )opments due to conf 1 i cts wi th the edJacent Sandpipe � residential development . The principal issues in this area concern how these �emaining vacant , unpla�ned parcels can be developed to best reinfarce Palm Desert' s unique character . GENERAL POL ( CY The City shall develop a more flexible zoning destgnatton on the remaining vacant parcels to 25 ,. { . permit consideration of creative mixed use residential /commercial developments . A portion of this area may be appropriate for City ' s affordabie high-density designatto� ( AHOPR) or Senlor Overlay . SPECIFIC POLICY 1 . To mitigate traffic congestton and confitcts assocfated wlth isolated development , the ROA shali constde � constructton of vehicular and pedestrtan bridges linking the 12-acre Ahmanson property with the 32-acre Karma property. This commerclal / residenttal development could be se � ved by one signalized Hlghrray 111 access located directiy northwest of the Palm Valley Storm Channel . 2. The RDA shall assist if necessary in the acquisit- ion of the Hoams Pool property, ailowing it to be Incorporated into the surrounding property as part of an overall plan . 26 � � �1 AT E q ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY �/STRIG� COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058•COACHELLA,CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(760)398-2651•FAX(760)398-3711 DIRfC70RS: OfFICERS PETER NELSON,PRESIDENT STEVEN B ROBBINS, PATRICIA A.LARSON.VICE PRESIDEN7 GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELLIS CODEKAS MARK BEUHIER, JOHN W.McfADDEN AU St 6 ZOO7 ASST.GENERAL MANAGER RUSSELL KITAHARA � � JULIA HERNANOEZ,SECRETARY RE C E IVE D DAN PARKS,ASST TO GENERAL MANAGER REDVJ�WFjeND SHF�i{i1�6,I�TTORNEYS rii v10J 0421.1 Renee Schrader AUG 0 8 ZGOl 0�2'.1 Department of Community Development City of Palm Desert ;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMEhT DEPARTMENT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive CITY OF PALN DESERT Palm Desert,CA 92260 Deaz Mr. Schrader: Subject: PP 07-08 This area is designated Zone B on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps,which are in effect at this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA}. Since the stormwater issues of this development are local drainage,the District does not need to review drainage design further. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current � regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and chazges are subject to change. The District requires restaurants to install a grease interceptor, including a sample box, sanitary tee and _�- running trap with cleanout,prior to any discharge to its sanitation facilities. The size of the grease interceptor will be determined and approved by the District. Installation of the interceptor will be inspected by the District. The District requires laundromats and commercial establishments with laundry facilities to install a lint trap. The size of the lint trap will be determined and approved by the District. Installation of the lint trap will be inspected by the District. . Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Scott Schedell, Stormwater ineer, extension 2266. J� ` rul , Y, �� Mark . Johnson Director of Engineering cc: A&H Management 210 East Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles,CA 90015 Jeff Johnson Riverside County Department of Public Health, Indio SS:ch�eng`sw�07�,PP07-OS (OSOfi20-3) TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY � �. INTEROFFICE MEMORADUM RECEIVED City of Paim Desert ,J�� 2 .' 1(�al :0'.�IhfItiITY DEVELOP3fEtiT DEPARTSfEYT CITY OF PALN DESERT TO: RENEE SCHRADER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FROM: FRANKIE RIDDLE, DIRECTOR �JF SPECIAL PROGRAMS SUBJECT: PP 07-08 DATE: JULY 24, 2007 The submitted precise plan has been reviewed to determine the need for a bus shelterlstop at the project location and inclusion of required trash/recycling enclosure(s) for each project. Bus Shelter: After reviewing the plans it has been determined that this project will not be conditioned with a requirement for a bus shelter and turnout. Trash Enclosures: The plan does appear to reflect trash enclosures; however, the trash/recycling enclosure(s) must be consistent with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 8.12. Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services must review and sign-off on the plans in relations to the placement and number of trashlrecycling enclosures. Review of the plans by Burrtec will ensure that vehicle circulation for its trucks is adequate to service the complex and to ensure that a sufficient number of enclosures are provided to meet the needs of the complex. The Applicant may contact Jennifer with Burrtec at (760) 340-6445 regarding this issue. FRANKI IDDL DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS cc: Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building and Safety �� � �''��� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Renee Schrader, Associate Planner From: Sam Szymanski, Senior Plans Examiner Date: August 7, 2007 Subject: PP 07-OS I have reviewed the information provided for the proposed 2-story commercial building and have the following comments: 1. Project must conform to the current State of California Codes adopted at the time of plan check submittal. The following are the codes enforced at this time: 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (Based on 1997 UBC) 2001 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (Based on 2000 UMC) 2001 CALfFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (Based on 2000 UPC) 2004 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (Based on 2002 NEC) 2005 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 2001 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE '`Note the 2007 California Codes shall be adopted January 1, 2008 2. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in every building (except R3 occupancies) where the total accumulation of gross floor area is 3000 square feet or more. (Reference City of Pa{m Desert Ordinance 1054) 3. Compliance with Ordinance 1124, Local Energy Efficiency Standards. The requirements are more restrictive than the 2005 California Energy Standards. Please obtain a copy of the Ordinance for further information. 4. A disabled access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to the Dept of Building and Safety for plan review of the site accessibility requirements as per 2001 CBC Chapter 11 B and Chapter 10. oa�me�t� i r 5. All exits must provide an accessible path of travel to the public way. (CBC 1006.1 & 1127B.1) 6. Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 1133B.8 and 1127B.5(8). The designer is also required to meet all ADA requirements. Where an ADA requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA requirement shall supercede the State requirement. 7. Provide an accessible path of travel to the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure is required to be accessible. Please obtain a detail from the Dept of Building and Safety. 8. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 9. All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 10. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1006 (Palm Desert Municipal Code 15.04.110 through 15.04.160). Compliance with Ordinance 1006 regarding street address location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from street, height from grade, height from street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may render the building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review process. You may request a copy of Ordinance 1006 from the Department of Building and Safety counter staff. 11. Please contact Debbie Le Blanc, Land Management Specialist, at the Department of Building and Safety (760-776-6420) regarding the addressing of all bui{dings and/or suites. Documentl , (. CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning � Attention: Renee Schrader FROM: Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner SUBJECT: PP 7-8 Picanhas EI Paseo/Lupine. -Conditions of Approval DATE: October 8, 20Q7 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. All landscape maintenance shalt be performed by the property owner who shall maintain the landscaping per the City approved landscape document package for the life of the project, consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ord. 801). 2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. BONDS AND FEES 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 6. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 7. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. 8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. Any and af{ offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. t" � 10. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 11. Landscape installation shall be drought tolerant in nature and in accordance with the City_s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (24.04). 12. Landscape, grading, and utility plans shall be submitted for review concurrently. 13. Full pub�ic improvements, as required by Section 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shal! be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 14. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No occupancy permit shall be granted until public improvements have been completed. 15. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department. 16. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management and Discharge Control. 17. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES} General Construction Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 18. Project shall record a reciprocal parking and access agreement with property to the west prior to issuance of grading permit. � Phil Joy ( � INTEROFFICE MEMORADUM City of Palm Desert TO: RENEE SCHRADER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FROM: FRANKIE RIDDLE, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS SUBJECT: PP 07-08 DATE: JULY 24, 2007 The submitted precise plan has been reviewed to determine the need for a bus shelter/stop at the project location and inclusion of required trash/recycling enclosure(s) for each project. Bus Shelter: After reviewing the pians it has been determined that this project will not be conditioned with a requirement for a bus shelter and turnout. Trash Enclosures: The plan does appear to reflect trash enclosures; however, the trash/recycling enclosure(s) must be consistent with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 8.12. Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services must review and sign-off on the plans in relations to the placement and number of trash/recycling enclosures. Review of the plans by Burrtec will ensure that vehicle circulation for its trucks is adequate to service the complex and to ensure that a sufficient number of enclosures are provided to meet the needs of the complex. The Applicant may contact Jennifer with Burrtec at (760) 340-6445 regarding this issue. FRANKI IDDL DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS cc: Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building and Safety � I ' ` ARCHITECTURAL �CtVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 07-08 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): PRESTNUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 44-530 San Pablo Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a two-story 15,459 square foot retail/restaurant; Colonnade. LOCATION: 73-999 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 SP Ms. Schrader presented a proposal to demolish the existing Picanha restaurant. The building taking its place would be finro-story with retail on the bottom and a restaurant on the second story with contemporary style architecture. This proposal includes a variance request for three (3} distinct items: height increase, side setback encroachment and to allow the building to encroach into the required commerciaf street corner. The project requires an additional six (6) feet above the 30-foot clearance for commercia{ and an exemption or a variance for the side street setback. The side street setback normally would require a five (5} foot setback from the property line, but the project would maintain a 2.5-foot setback. However, by doing so the sidewalk would remain the same size on the entire corner so it may not have that much of an impact. Another rationale for lessening its impact is the fact that this second story restaurant element is set back by a 17-foot terrace all the way around the corner. The general average heights of the predominant pieces are between 29 feet 6 inches and 31 feet and stilf within the limit. There is an elevator and the plans indicate the handicap path of travel. The landscape plan was submitted and reviewed by the Landscape Specialist and the comments were included in the staff report requesting a number of changes. Commissioner DeLuna stated that the color of the colonnade building next door was very light and asked if that would be updated. Commissioner Vuksic indicated that he would be meeting with the building owner about giving the existing colonnade building a fresher look, including paint colors. G.`.PionnicgWanire Judy\Wora Fdes�ARC M�nules�2007`AR070911.mm DOC Page 5 of 8 f � ( � � ARCHITECTURAL RCJIEW COMMISSlON ' MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 The Commission discussed the water features on the plans. Mr. David Drake, designer, indicated that it was a recirculating fountain and that they were trying to keep the alley a nice place to walk through for parking. Commissioner DeLuna asked if they addressed LEED standards in the design. Mr. Vuksic, architect, stated that they did not, but they were meeting Title 24 energy calcufations. Mr. Bagato stated that City standards are above Title 24. The Commission discussed water features and water calculations. Mr. Vuksic mentioned that the reason for the exception of the setback on Lupine is that the property line on Lupine is further back from the curb than it is at EI Paseo. They thought it was reasonable to have the width equal on EI Paseo and Lupine for continuity. Mr. Bagato stated that it was consistent with how far The Gardens were from the street, so they were not asking for anything above and beyond the normal. Mr. Vuksic referred to the issue of height and stated that the only part that exceeds the height limit was the tower element on the corner. He indicated that they have worked to keep it at 10% of the overall roof area. Mr. Bagato stated this was not considered a variance and referred to Section 25.56, which says tower elements that shall exceed 10% floor area can be approved over the height and would require approval by City Council, The only variance would be for the setback and the daylight triangle. He discussed the daylight triangle and stated that it didn't make sense on EI Paseo on the properties with small lots to have a 30-foot tall building set back 60 feet from the corner. It wouldn't be possible for a retail/pedestrian street building. He stated that they would like to come up with a plan that would be more specific to EI Paseo; parking, architecture, setbacks, landscaping and hardscaping, so that these issues can be addressed in the future. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that because the top floor steps back it doesn't dominate the corner iike some buildings could. The Commission reviewed and discussed landscaping. Mr. Spencer Knight, Landscaping Manager, had concerns with this being such a big building on a small lot and stated that it was under-landscaped and didn't meet the City's parking lot tree ordinance. He said that this was always a problem with EI Paseo and the space dedicated to landscaping was minimal at best with not much canopy over the hardscape. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscaped Specialist, stated that there were a lot of tall plants and a lot of low plants but nothing in the middle. She suggested having medium size plants to help break up the huge expanse of building and stated that they could have pots that have greenery in them. Mr. Drake agreed with their suggestions. G�.Pianc�nr,�Jan�ne Judy'�Wcrd F��esV+RC M�nules�2007WR070911 rnin.DOC Page 6 of 8 1 r l � � , ARCHITECTURAL RtVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 Commissioner Lopez referred to the pots on the staircase and asked if they were movable or attached to the building. Mr. Drake stated that the ones out in the front were a fire element and would be used by the restaurant to attract attention. The other pots going up the side stairs would alternate between fire elements and planters. Mr. Knight stated that there would be a problem with maintaining the plants. He suggested that they discuss that issue when reviewing the landscape p{ans. The Commission discussed the issues with the irrigation and maintenance of the pots. Commissioner Lopez stated that maintenance of the pots were an issue. He indicated that it wasn't how they looked but problems with the irrigation. For instance, how the valve sticks on or how they are on too long, then you have a puddle and a mess at the base of them and asked if they would be putting in a drain to alleviate that problem. Mr. Drake stated that they would have a small dry well area underneath for overflow and bringing the irrigation up through the concrete. Mr. Gregory stated that it would be to compacted and it would do it all pver again. Mr. Drake stated that there would also be an internal irrigation that would be used. Commissioner Lopez stated again that a drain of some sort was needed. Commissioner Lopez questioned the size of the palm trees proposed for the front of the building. He indicated that they appeared to be only one foot or less from the building and didn't feel that they could get the palms in that location. The Commission and the Landscape Manager discussed the size and location of the trees. Mr. Knight indicated that it would take a higher level of scrutiny to get things in and get it close enough that it might have a chance of working. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to grant approval subject to: 1) the landscape plan being reviewed and approved by the Landscape Specialist; and, 2) the Conceptual Grading Plan being resubmitted to show the requested comparative data and dimensions of adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. G:�Plonrnng�fan�ne Judy�WorG F�Ies�ARC M�nuies�20071AR070971.m�n 00C Page 7 of 8